Mechanics of Elevator Trim. In Detail. [Archive]

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 8th 08, 10:24 PM

More_Flaps > wrote in
:

> On Jun 9, 9:06*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> More_Flaps > wrote
>> innews:64b157a9-99f5-4429-9125-d1e2
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 9, 7:29*am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
>> > D0t C0m> wrote:
>> >> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in
>> >> messagenews:5c4deac0-2b92
>> > ...
>> >> On Jun 8, 11:07 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Jun 7, 10:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > What exactly happens when the trim is adjusted to point the
>> >> > > nose upward?
>>
>> >> > What type of plane is this for? I have a Mooney and also fly a
>> >> > 182. Both trim system are very, very different.
>>
>> >> For sake of those of us who only own MSFS, let's say a C172.
>>
>> >> Does MSFS emulate the servo tab on the elevator? What does it do
>> >> when you change the trim in the air?
>>
>> >> Trying to emulate real life trim on a simulation system that uses
>> >> spring centered control sticks isn't going to work like real life
>> >> as you may already know.
>>
>> >> Should I post the spoiler on how a couple other mechanisims work
>> >> (besides servo tabs)?
>>
>> > I'll raise you one to make three additional trim systems. Any more?
>>
>> I can think of four for a total of five, depending on whether you'd
>> consider hydraulic centering to be the same as a bungee trim system.
>> theothersa re of course, a tab system which is th emost common light
>> aircraft system. the trimmable stab, a'la Cub and most airliners and
>> the vane, like some early T-carts had.. There're probably some
>> others, but i can't think of any.
>>
>
> I'd count that as the same -the acutuating system doesn't count, just
> the aerodynamic priciples. So, if you have four I'll raise you again
> one to make five... Any raise on five basic methods?

Yeah, they;re essentially the same.

Go on. I'll call.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 8th 08, 10:25 PM

Rich Ahrens > wrote in
. net:

> on 6/8/2008 1:25 PM Bertie the Bunyip said the following:
>> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
>> news:2bd217b4-297e-411f-
>> :
>>
>>> On Jun 8, 12:21 pm, wrote:
>>>> On Jun 7, 11:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>>>>> Also, for experienced pilots that know the answer, please do not
>>>>> ruin it by telling everyone before any answers have been given,
>>>>> though if you are not certain of the answer and would like to
>>>>> speculate, that's fine. :)
>>>>> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>>>> Guess you missed this thread:
>>>>
>>>>
http://groups.google.ca/group/rec.aviation.piloting/browse_thread/th
>>>> r...
>>> Did indeed.
>>>
>>> Just glad that the answer is not laid-out in first few posts.
>>>
>>> For students that are reading this, don't cheat by reading that
>>> thread!
>>>
>>> There is no point in giving your answer if you look it up first. :)
>>>
>>> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>>>
>>
>> So, what are they suposed to do, get it from reading tea leaves?
>
> Pull it out of their asses, of course, just as he does with most of
> his posts.
>

Exactly...

Bertie

More_Flaps

June 8th 08, 10:39 PM

On Jun 9, 9:24*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> More_Flaps > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 9, 9:06*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> More_Flaps > wrote
> >> innews:64b157a9-99f5-4429-9125-d1e2
> > :
>
> >> > On Jun 9, 7:29*am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
> >> > D0t C0m> wrote:
> >> >> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in
> >> >> messagenews:5c4deac0-2b92
> >> > ...
> >> >> On Jun 8, 11:07 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Jun 7, 10:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> >> >> > > What exactly happens when the trim is adjusted to point the
> >> >> > > nose upward?
>
> >> >> > What type of plane is this for? I have a Mooney and also fly a
> >> >> > 182. Both trim system are very, very different.
>
> >> >> For sake of those of us who only own MSFS, let's say a C172.
>
> >> >> Does MSFS emulate the servo tab on the elevator? What does it do
> >> >> when you change the trim in the air?
>
> >> >> Trying to emulate real life trim on a simulation system that uses
> >> >> spring centered control sticks isn't going to work like real life
> >> >> as you may already know.
>
> >> >> Should I post the spoiler on how a couple other mechanisims work
> >> >> (besides servo tabs)?
>
> >> > I'll raise you one to make three additional trim systems. Any more?
>
> >> I can think of four for a total of five, depending on whether you'd
> >> consider hydraulic centering to be the same as a bungee trim system.
> >> theothersa re of course, a tab system which is th emost common light
> >> aircraft system. the trimmable stab, a'la Cub and most airliners and
> >> the vane, like some early T-carts had.. There're probably some
> >> others, but i can't think of any.
>
> > I'd count that as the same -the acutuating system doesn't count, just
> > the aerodynamic priciples. So, if you have four I'll raise you again
> > one to make five... Any raise on five basic methods?
>
> Yeah, they;re essentially the same.
>
> Go on. I'll call.
>

Should'nt we wait to see if there's any other raise?

Cheers

terry

June 8th 08, 10:40 PM

On Jun 8, 3:08*pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This post is primarily directed toward student pilots like myself.
>
> First, I am not asking because I want to know the answer (I already
> know), but do a little experiment. *I have maybe 7 or 8 different
> sources of flight information that I rely on for ground school
> (Jeppesen, FAA Handbooks, etc), and none of them said _how_ it worked
> in sufficient detail, they only said what one must do to make the
> plane pitch up or downard.
>
> So for you students, please do not cheat and do what I did, which is
> watch the airfoils move as you move the trim control. *Also, it would
> help if you did not think about the correct answer too much, which
> would lead you to the correct answer, thereby defeating the purpose of
> my experiment.
>
> So, without cheating, and without asking an experienced pilot or
> mechanic,...
>
> What exactly happens when the trim is adjusted to point the nose
> upward?
>
> The more specific your answer about the mechanics on airfoil outside
> the plane, the better. :)
>
> And remember, no cheating!
>
> Also, for experienced pilots that know the answer, please do not ruin
> it by telling everyone before any answers have been given, though if
> you are not certain of the answer and would like to speculate, that's
> fine. :)

Are you sure you are not Mxsmanic? You are asking a question and you
dont want anybody who knows the answer to reply. In other words you
want people to answer incorrectly so you can correct them, correct?
Only difference between that and Mxsmanic is that he will correct you
whether you are right or wrong.
I trust you will only correct those that are really incorrect,
correct?
So Le Chaud, have you actually started your flying training yet?
congratulations if you have and I look forward to hearing how it is
going.
Terry
PPL Downunder

Tina

June 8th 08, 11:31 PM

On Jun 8, 5:40 pm, terry > wrote:
> On Jun 8, 3:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi All,
>
> > This post is primarily directed toward student pilots like myself.
>
> > First, I am not asking because I want to know the answer (I already
> > know), but do a little experiment. I have maybe 7 or 8 different
> > sources of flight information that I rely on for ground school
> > (Jeppesen, FAA Handbooks, etc), and none of them said _how_ it worked
> > in sufficient detail, they only said what one must do to make the
> > plane pitch up or downard.
>
> > So for you students, please do not cheat and do what I did, which is
> > watch the airfoils move as you move the trim control. Also, it would
> > help if you did not think about the correct answer too much, which
> > would lead you to the correct answer, thereby defeating the purpose of
> > my experiment.
>
> > So, without cheating, and without asking an experienced pilot or
> > mechanic,...
>
> > What exactly happens when the trim is adjusted to point the nose
> > upward?
>
> > The more specific your answer about the mechanics on airfoil outside
> > the plane, the better. :)
>
> > And remember, no cheating!
>
> > Also, for experienced pilots that know the answer, please do not ruin
> > it by telling everyone before any answers have been given, though if
> > you are not certain of the answer and would like to speculate, that's
> > fine. :)
>
> Are you sure you are not Mxsmanic? You are asking a question and you
> dont want anybody who knows the answer to reply. In other words you
> want people to answer incorrectly so you can correct them, correct?
> Only difference between that and Mxsmanic is that he will correct you
> whether you are right or wrong.
> I trust you will only correct those that are really incorrect,
> correct?
> So Le Chaud, have you actually started your flying training yet?
> congratulations if you have and I look forward to hearing how it is
> going.
> Terry
> PPL Downunder

Terry, it might have been a few months ago that someone using this
username was going to use his engineering degree to design a superior
g a airplane. He did promise progress reports.

I am afraid he may be a fraud.

All who are surprised please raise their hands.

No hands? I'd say that makes him an unsuccessful fraud.

Rich Ahrens[_2_]

June 8th 08, 11:46 PM

on 6/8/2008 4:39 PM More_Flaps said the following:
> On Jun 9, 9:24 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> More_Flaps > wrote :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 9, 9:06 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> More_Flaps > wrote
>>>> innews:64b157a9-99f5-4429-9125-d1e2
>>> :
>>>>> On Jun 9, 7:29 am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
>>>>> D0t C0m> wrote:
>>>>>> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in
>>>>>> messagenews:5c4deac0-2b92
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Jun 8, 11:07 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 7, 10:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>>>>>>>> What exactly happens when the trim is adjusted to point the
>>>>>>>> nose upward?
>>>>>>> What type of plane is this for? I have a Mooney and also fly a
>>>>>>> 182. Both trim system are very, very different.
>>>>>> For sake of those of us who only own MSFS, let's say a C172.
>>>>>> Does MSFS emulate the servo tab on the elevator? What does it do
>>>>>> when you change the trim in the air?
>>>>>> Trying to emulate real life trim on a simulation system that uses
>>>>>> spring centered control sticks isn't going to work like real life
>>>>>> as you may already know.
>>>>>> Should I post the spoiler on how a couple other mechanisims work
>>>>>> (besides servo tabs)?
>>>>> I'll raise you one to make three additional trim systems. Any more?
>>>> I can think of four for a total of five, depending on whether you'd
>>>> consider hydraulic centering to be the same as a bungee trim system.
>>>> theothersa re of course, a tab system which is th emost common light
>>>> aircraft system. the trimmable stab, a'la Cub and most airliners and
>>>> the vane, like some early T-carts had.. There're probably some
>>>> others, but i can't think of any.
>>> I'd count that as the same -the acutuating system doesn't count, just
>>> the aerodynamic priciples. So, if you have four I'll raise you again
>>> one to make five... Any raise on five basic methods?
>> Yeah, they;re essentially the same.
>>
>> Go on. I'll call.
>>
> Should'nt we wait to see if there's any other raise?

Weight shift?

terry

June 8th 08, 11:52 PM

On Jun 9, 8:31*am, Tina > wrote:
> On Jun 8, 5:40 pm, terry > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 3:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > > Hi All,
>
> > > This post is primarily directed toward student pilots like myself.
>
> > > First, I am not asking because I want to know the answer (I already
> > > know), but do a little experiment. *I have maybe 7 or 8 different
> > > sources of flight information that I rely on for ground school
> > > (Jeppesen, FAA Handbooks, etc), and none of them said _how_ it worked
> > > in sufficient detail, they only said what one must do to make the
> > > plane pitch up or downard.
>
> > > So for you students, please do not cheat and do what I did, which is
> > > watch the airfoils move as you move the trim control. *Also, it would
> > > help if you did not think about the correct answer too much, which
> > > would lead you to the correct answer, thereby defeating the purpose of
> > > my experiment.
>
> > > So, without cheating, and without asking an experienced pilot or
> > > mechanic,...
>
> > > What exactly happens when the trim is adjusted to point the nose
> > > upward?
>
> > > The more specific your answer about the mechanics on airfoil outside
> > > the plane, the better. :)
>
> > > And remember, no cheating!
>
> > > Also, for experienced pilots that know the answer, please do not ruin
> > > it by telling everyone before any answers have been given, though if
> > > you are not certain of the answer and would like to speculate, that's
> > > fine. :)
>
> > Are you sure you are not Mxsmanic? *You are asking a question and you
> > dont want anybody who knows the answer to reply. *In other words you
> > want people to answer incorrectly so you can correct them, correct?
> > Only difference between that and *Mxsmanic is that he will correct you
> > whether you are right or wrong.
> > I trust you will only correct those that are really incorrect,
> > correct?
> > So Le Chaud, have you actually started your flying training yet?
> > congratulations if you have and I look forward to hearing how it is
> > going.
> > Terry
> > PPL Downunder
>
> Terry, it might have been a few months ago that someone using this
> username was going to use his engineering degree to design a superior
> g a airplane. He did promise progress reports.
>
> I am afraid he may be a fraud.
>
That would be a Le Fraud, but I am prepared to give him the benefit
of the doubt.
Tina, are you joining the mass exodus to pilots of america? they seem
to be a pretty friendly bunch, even welcoming an alien like me.
Terry
PPL Downunder

Tina

June 9th 08, 12:03 AM

> Tina, are you joining the mass exodus to pilots of america? they seem
> to be a pretty friendly bunch, even welcoming an alien like me.
> Terry
> PPL Downunder

I have joined there with the unimaginative user name tina201, but have
not found my way around the site yet. I have yet to find the room that
has the same wide range of topics as this site does, but absent what
we shrinks call '****ing contests' (sorry for the technical language).
I fully admit I have not yet done more than join the site.

[email protected]

June 9th 08, 12:06 AM

On Jun 8, 3:39 pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
> On Jun 9, 9:24 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>
> > More_Flaps > wrote :
>
> > > On Jun 9, 9:06 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > >> More_Flaps > wrote
> > >> innews:64b157a9-99f5-4429-9125-d1e2
> > > :
>
> > >> > On Jun 9, 7:29 am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
> > >> > D0t C0m> wrote:
> > >> >> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in
> > >> >> messagenews:5c4deac0-2b92
> > >> > ...
> > >> >> On Jun 8, 11:07 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > >> >> > On Jun 7, 10:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > >> >> > > What exactly happens when the trim is adjusted to point the
> > >> >> > > nose upward?
>
> > >> >> > What type of plane is this for? I have a Mooney and also fly a
> > >> >> > 182. Both trim system are very, very different.
>
> > >> >> For sake of those of us who only own MSFS, let's say a C172.
>
> > >> >> Does MSFS emulate the servo tab on the elevator? What does it do
> > >> >> when you change the trim in the air?
>
> > >> >> Trying to emulate real life trim on a simulation system that uses
> > >> >> spring centered control sticks isn't going to work like real life
> > >> >> as you may already know.
>
> > >> >> Should I post the spoiler on how a couple other mechanisims work
> > >> >> (besides servo tabs)?
>
> > >> > I'll raise you one to make three additional trim systems. Any more?
>
> > >> I can think of four for a total of five, depending on whether you'd
> > >> consider hydraulic centering to be the same as a bungee trim system.
> > >> theothersa re of course, a tab system which is th emost common light
> > >> aircraft system. the trimmable stab, a'la Cub and most airliners and
> > >> the vane, like some early T-carts had.. There're probably some
> > >> others, but i can't think of any.
>
> > > I'd count that as the same -the acutuating system doesn't count, just
> > > the aerodynamic priciples. So, if you have four I'll raise you again
> > > one to make five... Any raise on five basic methods?
>
> > Yeah, they;re essentially the same.
>
> > Go on. I'll call.
>
> Should'nt we wait to see if there's any other raise?
>
> Cheers

Some sailplanes, some ultralights and a few other light
aircraft use bungees or springs in the elevator control system.
Adjusting the tension of the bungee or spring will apply appropriate
force to the elevator system to achieve trim.

Tabs are most common. Some ultralights have a ground-adjustable
tab. Others use a chain-and-cable arrangement that work a small
jackscrew inside the stab that pushes and pulls a rod attached to the
tab. Cessna likes that one. Taylorcraft used a crank that drove a
cable loop that worked a pulley that had a thread through it, and ran
a screw back and forth to work a shorter push-pull cable to the tab,
IIRC. Some just use a long push-pull Bowden cable directly from a
lever to the tab. Champs/Citabrias use a lever that works two 1/16"
cables directly to the tab, via pulleys. Some homebuilts use an
electric jackscrew to work the tab. Electrical failure means no trim.

Adjustable stabilizers are not uncommon. The Supercub and Tri-
Pacer use them but also have a bungee affair that applies tension to
the elevator cables. Two systems in one airplane. The Cessna 180/185
adjusts the stab via two jackscrews at the leading edge, operated in
unison by sprockets and a chain diven by a cable loop.

I once saw somewhere a light aircraft (homebuilt ultralight, I
think) that had its battery on a sliding device that moved fore-and-
aft to change the CG and therefore trim. This sort of thing adds
unacceptable weight.

Stabilators use adjustable antiservo tabs. That tab has a lever
on it whose forward end is hinged at a point behind the stab hinge to
get the desired antiservo action, and that hinge point is on a nut
moved fore and aft by a jackscrew to get the trim action.

Mooneys used to move the WHOLE TAIL, fin and stab and all, to
change the angle of the stab. Do they still make them that way?

The Spratt Controlwing moved the wings for all control
including trim. The tail did nothing but keep the nose pointed into
the wind. See http://www.flyingflea.org/docs/SprattControlwing.htm

Didn't the Wren 260 use a small canard for low-speed trim?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterson_260SE

Dan

Marty Shapiro

June 9th 08, 01:14 AM

More_Flaps > wrote in
:

> On Jun 9, 9:24*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> More_Flaps > wrote
>> innews:d998f060-3e6a-4b62-8179-88af
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 9, 9:06*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> More_Flaps > wrote
>> >> innews:64b157a9-99f5-4429-9125-d1e2
>> > :
>>
>> >> > On Jun 9, 7:29*am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow
>> >> > Way
>
>> >> > D0t C0m> wrote:
>> >> >> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in
>> >> >> messagenews:5c4deac0-2b92
>> >> > ...
>> >> >> On Jun 8, 11:07 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Jun 7, 10:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin >
>> >> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > What exactly happens when the trim is adjusted to point the
>> >> >> > > nose upward?
>>
>> >> >> > What type of plane is this for? I have a Mooney and also fly
>> >> >> > a 182. Both trim system are very, very different.
>>
>> >> >> For sake of those of us who only own MSFS, let's say a C172.
>>
>> >> >> Does MSFS emulate the servo tab on the elevator? What does it
>> >> >> do when you change the trim in the air?
>>
>> >> >> Trying to emulate real life trim on a simulation system that
>> >> >> uses spring centered control sticks isn't going to work like
>> >> >> real life as you may already know.
>>
>> >> >> Should I post the spoiler on how a couple other mechanisims
>> >> >> work (besides servo tabs)?
>>
>> >> > I'll raise you one to make three additional trim systems. Any
>> >> > more?
>>
>> >> I can think of four for a total of five, depending on whether
>> >> you'd consider hydraulic centering to be the same as a bungee trim
>> >> system. theothersa re of course, a tab system which is th emost
>> >> common light aircraft system. the trimmable stab, a'la Cub and
>> >> most airliners and the vane, like some early T-carts had..
>> >> There're probably some others, but i can't think of any.
>>
>> > I'd count that as the same -the acutuating system doesn't count,
>> > just the aerodynamic priciples. So, if you have four I'll raise you
>> > again one to make five... Any raise on five basic methods?
>>
>> Yeah, they;re essentially the same.
>>
>> Go on. I'll call.
>>
>
> Should'nt we wait to see if there's any other raise?
>
> Cheers

Would a 100% computer controlled system like the B2 count as yet another
way? Do they even have to trim it or does the computer automatically
adjust for whatever flight regime they set?

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Tina

June 9th 08, 02:25 AM

On Jun 8, 7:06 pm, wrote:
> On Jun 8, 3:39 pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 9, 9:24 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > > More_Flaps > wrote :
>
> > > > On Jun 9, 9:06 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > > >> More_Flaps > wrote
> > > >> innews:64b157a9-99f5-4429-9125-d1e2
> > > > :
>
> > > >> > On Jun 9, 7:29 am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
> > > >> > D0t C0m> wrote:
> > > >> >> "Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in
> > > >> >> messagenews:5c4deac0-2b92
> > > >> > ...
> > > >> >> On Jun 8, 11:07 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > > >> >> > On Jun 7, 10:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > > >> >> > > What exactly happens when the trim is adjusted to point the
> > > >> >> > > nose upward?
>
> > > >> >> > What type of plane is this for? I have a Mooney and also fly a
> > > >> >> > 182. Both trim system are very, very different.
>
>moved fore and aft by a jackscrew to get the trim action.
>
> Mooneys used to move the WHOLE TAIL, fin and stab and all, to
> change the angle of the stab. Do they still make them that way?
>

You're right, Dan -- through at least the Mooney 201 (M20J) there are
no trim tabs, the entire tail pivots to change the trim.

Michael Henry[_2_]

June 9th 08, 03:17 AM

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:

> I assume you are most familiar with the use of a servo tab. Can you name
> at least two other ways that it is commonly done in light aircraft?

The J-3 Cub has a moving stabilizer. Although you specifically said
"light aircraft" it's interesting to note that many airliners also us a
moving stabilizer.

This and another method are mentioned in this article:

http://flighttraining.aopa.org/learntofly/project_pilot/articles/0209article_pf.html

Le Chaud Lapin

June 9th 08, 04:54 AM

On Jun 8, 5:31*pm, Tina > wrote:
> On Jun 8, 5:40 pm, terry > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 3:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > > Hi All,
>
> > > This post is primarily directed toward student pilots like myself.
>
> > > First, I am not asking because I want to know the answer (I already
> > > know), but do a little experiment. *I have maybe 7 or 8 different
> > > sources of flight information that I rely on for ground school
> > > (Jeppesen, FAA Handbooks, etc), and none of them said _how_ it worked
> > > in sufficient detail, they only said what one must do to make the
> > > plane pitch up or downard.
>
> > > So for you students, please do not cheat and do what I did, which is
> > > watch the airfoils move as you move the trim control. *Also, it would
> > > help if you did not think about the correct answer too much, which
> > > would lead you to the correct answer, thereby defeating the purpose of
> > > my experiment.
>
> > > So, without cheating, and without asking an experienced pilot or
> > > mechanic,...
>
> > > What exactly happens when the trim is adjusted to point the nose
> > > upward?
>
> > > The more specific your answer about the mechanics on airfoil outside
> > > the plane, the better. :)
>
> > > And remember, no cheating!
>
> > > Also, for experienced pilots that know the answer, please do not ruin
> > > it by telling everyone before any answers have been given, though if
> > > you are not certain of the answer and would like to speculate, that's
> > > fine. :)
>
> > Are you sure you are not Mxsmanic? *You are asking a question and you
> > dont want anybody who knows the answer to reply. *In other words you
> > want people to answer incorrectly so you can correct them, correct?
> > Only difference between that and *Mxsmanic is that he will correct you
> > whether you are right or wrong.
> > I trust you will only correct those that are really incorrect,
> > correct?
> > So Le Chaud, have you actually started your flying training yet?
> > congratulations if you have and I look forward to hearing how it is
> > going.
> > Terry
> > PPL Downunder
>
> Terry, it might have been a few months ago that someone using this
> username was going to use his engineering degree to design a superior
> g a airplane. He did promise progress reports.
>
> I am afraid he may be a fraud.
>
> All who are surprised please raise their hands.
>
> No hands? I'd say that makes him an unsuccessful fraud.- Hide quoted text -

Spent 30 minutes at pool yesterday discussing with professional
metalworkers best way to weld a complex joint for important element of
prototype of what would be considered a wing.

Such things take time, and still, I do not know if it will work.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin

June 9th 08, 05:01 AM

On Jun 8, 6:06*pm, wrote:
> On Jun 8, 3:39 pm, More_Flaps > wrote:

A very detailed responsed mostly snipped...

Since you response is very detailed, more than I was expecting, I
should say that I was primarily interested answers about why it is
that setting trim relieves pressure that pilot has to exert on yoke.

I mentioned in response to Geoffrey's post that aircraft under
question could be consider C172, whose trim mechanism is obvious, but
if one were to talk too much about that part which is obvious, then
one might inadvertently give the answer away.

Again, this isn't rocket science, but I suspect that other students,
like I, had misconception of how it might work, even though it is
written in the book how it should work.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 9th 08, 05:21 AM

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
:

> On Jun 8, 5:31*pm, Tina > wrote:
>> On Jun 8, 5:40 pm, terry > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 8, 3:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>>
>> > > Hi All,
>>
>> > > This post is primarily directed toward student pilots like
>> > > myself.
>>
>> > > First, I am not asking because I want to know the answer (I
>> > > already know), but do a little experiment. *I have maybe 7 or 8
>> > > different sources of flight information that I rely on for ground
>> > > school (Jeppesen, FAA Handbooks, etc), and none of them said
>> > > _how_ it worked in sufficient detail, they only said what one
>> > > must do to make the plane pitch up or downard.
>>
>> > > So for you students, please do not cheat and do what I did, which
>> > > is watch the airfoils move as you move the trim control. *Also,
>> > > it woul
> d
>> > > help if you did not think about the correct answer too much,
>> > > which would lead you to the correct answer, thereby defeating the
>> > > purpose of
>
>> > > my experiment.
>>
>> > > So, without cheating, and without asking an experienced pilot or
>> > > mechanic,...
>>
>> > > What exactly happens when the trim is adjusted to point the nose
>> > > upward?
>>
>> > > The more specific your answer about the mechanics on airfoil
>> > > outside the plane, the better. :)
>>
>> > > And remember, no cheating!
>>
>> > > Also, for experienced pilots that know the answer, please do not
>> > > ruin it by telling everyone before any answers have been given,
>> > > though if you are not certain of the answer and would like to
>> > > speculate, that's fine. :)
>>
>> > Are you sure you are not Mxsmanic? *You are asking a question and
>> > you dont want anybody who knows the answer to reply. *In other
>> > words you want people to answer incorrectly so you can correct
>> > them, correct? Only difference between that and *Mxsmanic is that
>> > he will correct you
>
>> > whether you are right or wrong.
>> > I trust you will only correct those that are really incorrect,
>> > correct?
>> > So Le Chaud, have you actually started your flying training yet?
>> > congratulations if you have and I look forward to hearing how it is
>> > going.
>> > Terry
>> > PPL Downunder
>>
>> Terry, it might have been a few months ago that someone using this
>> username was going to use his engineering degree to design a superior
>> g a airplane. He did promise progress reports.
>>
>> I am afraid he may be a fraud.
>>
>> All who are surprised please raise their hands.
>>
>> No hands? I'd say that makes him an unsuccessful fraud.- Hide quoted
>> text
> -
>
> Spent 30 minutes at pool yesterday discussing with professional
> metalworkers best way to weld a complex joint for important element of
> prototype of what would be considered a wing.
>
> Such things take time, and still, I do not know if it will work.

If there's anyone williing to take a bet....

Bertie

Le Chaud Lapin

June 9th 08, 06:24 AM

On Jun 8, 9:17*pm, Michael Henry >
wrote:
> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
> > I assume you are most familiar with the use of a servo tab. Can you name
> > at least two other ways that it is commonly done in light aircraft?
>
> The J-3 Cub has a moving stabilizer. Although you specifically said
> "light aircraft" it's interesting to note that many airliners also us a
> moving stabilizer.
>
> This and another method are mentioned in this article:
>
> http://flighttraining.aopa.org/learntofly/project_pilot/articles/0209...

Yikes - that's it. The answer is in that link.

Since no other students responded...

...when I first started used/read about trim tab, I figured it was
"more of the same", meaning that there was some complex mechanism in
the aircraft where trim tab simply did more of whatever the elevator
was doing, but some how figured out how to release pressure on the
yoke.

Well that's true, but a more correct interpretation is that the trim
tab does not participate in elevating the aircraft really, but serves
to aerodynamically set the angle of the elevator, at which point the
elevator does its job. I learn this in MSFS by trying various
movements and watching outside the aircraft how control surfaces
responded. The trim tab was moving in opposite direction that I
thought it would. I also saw that on C172, there is an asymmetric,
with only one tab.

All obvious to pilots, but interesting for students, for me at least.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Tina

June 9th 08, 06:34 AM

Le Chaud Lapin wrote > wrote:

>
> Spent 30 minutes at pool yesterday discussing with professional
> metalworkers best way to weld a complex joint for important element of
> prototype of what would be considered a wing.
>
> Such things take time, and still, I do not know if it will work.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

to which I would point out that in 2008 most engineers when
considering structures operating at general aviation speeds and
stresses would be thinking of composites and molding complex shapes,
not in terms of bending metal and welded joining.

Gezellig[_2_]

June 9th 08, 09:21 AM

It happens that Le Chaud Lapin formulated :
> Spent 30 minutes at pool yesterday discussing with professional
> metalworkers best way to weld a complex joint for important element of
> prototype of what would be considered a wing.

> Such things take time, and still, I do not know if it will work.

> -Le Chaud Lapin-

hahhahahaha

ploink

Andy Hawkins

June 9th 08, 09:26 AM

Hi.

In article >,
Le Chaud > wrote:
> Again, this isn't rocket science, but I suspect that other students,
> like I, had misconception of how it might work, even though it is
> written in the book how it should work.

A student who's actually sat in an aircraft and carried out the pre-flight
should have little doubt as to what moving the trim wheel actually does.

In the Warrior I fly, we're taught to put in full back elevator, then wind
the trim through the limits of its travel, watching the trim tab to ensure
it moves as it should.

Similarly, in the 'Aircraft General and Principles of Flight' exam we have
to sit in the UK, the operation of trim is expected to be understood.

Andy

Stealth Pilot[_2_]

June 9th 08, 02:21 PM

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 22:24:07 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
> wrote:

>On Jun 8, 9:17*pm, Michael Henry >
>wrote:
>> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
>> > I assume you are most familiar with the use of a servo tab. Can you name
>> > at least two other ways that it is commonly done in light aircraft?
>>
>> The J-3 Cub has a moving stabilizer. Although you specifically said
>> "light aircraft" it's interesting to note that many airliners also us a
>> moving stabilizer.
>>
>> This and another method are mentioned in this article:
>>
>> http://flighttraining.aopa.org/learntofly/project_pilot/articles/0209...
>
>Yikes - that's it. The answer is in that link.
>
>Since no other students responded...
>
>...when I first started used/read about trim tab, I figured it was
>"more of the same", meaning that there was some complex mechanism in
>the aircraft where trim tab simply did more of whatever the elevator
>was doing, but some how figured out how to release pressure on the
>yoke.
>
>Well that's true, but a more correct interpretation is that the trim
>tab does not participate in elevating the aircraft really, but serves
>to aerodynamically set the angle of the elevator, at which point the
>elevator does its job. I learn this in MSFS by trying various
>movements and watching outside the aircraft how control surfaces
>responded. The trim tab was moving in opposite direction that I
>thought it would. I also saw that on C172, there is an asymmetric,
>with only one tab.
>
>All obvious to pilots, but interesting for students, for me at least.
>
>-Le Chaud Lapin-

if you ever read 'Stick and Rudder' by wolfgang langeweische you will
find that he refers to flippers for the majority of the book.
this is to prevent the mistake you make above where you thought the
elevator elevated the aircraft.

amazing, I never thought anyone actually made that mistake.
Stealth Pilot

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 9th 08, 03:15 PM

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 22:24:07 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
> > wrote:
>
>>On Jun 8, 9:17*pm, Michael Henry >
>>wrote:
>>> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
>>> > I assume you are most familiar with the use of a servo tab. Can
>>> > you name at least two other ways that it is commonly done in light
>>> > aircraft?
>>>
>>> The J-3 Cub has a moving stabilizer. Although you specifically said
>>> "light aircraft" it's interesting to note that many airliners also
>>> us a moving stabilizer.
>>>
>>> This and another method are mentioned in this article:
>>>
>>>
http://flighttraining.aopa.org/learntofly/project_pilot/articles/0209
>>> ...
>>
>>Yikes - that's it. The answer is in that link.
>>
>>Since no other students responded...
>>
>>...when I first started used/read about trim tab, I figured it was
>>"more of the same", meaning that there was some complex mechanism in
>>the aircraft where trim tab simply did more of whatever the elevator
>>was doing, but some how figured out how to release pressure on the
>>yoke.
>>
>>Well that's true, but a more correct interpretation is that the trim
>>tab does not participate in elevating the aircraft really, but serves
>>to aerodynamically set the angle of the elevator, at which point the
>>elevator does its job. I learn this in MSFS by trying various
>>movements and watching outside the aircraft how control surfaces
>>responded. The trim tab was moving in opposite direction that I
>>thought it would. I also saw that on C172, there is an asymmetric,
>>with only one tab.
>>
>>All obvious to pilots, but interesting for students, for me at least.
>>
>>-Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> if you ever read 'Stick and Rudder' by wolfgang langeweische you will
> find that he refers to flippers for the majority of the book.
> this is to prevent the mistake you make above where you thought the
> elevator elevated the aircraft.
>
> amazing, I never thought anyone actually made that mistake.

First hour students do sometimes. I've also seen one guy actually tilt
his head back when IO told him to raise the nose on a first flight.

Flippers is an archaic term that predates Langeweisch by a couple of
decades! It was pretty much dropped mainstream during WW2, I suppose
because it didn't sound techie enough.

Bertie

Le Chaud Lapin

June 9th 08, 03:25 PM

On Jun 9, 12:34*am, Tina > wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Spent 30 minutes at pool yesterday discussing with professional
> > metalworkers best way to weld a complex joint for important element of
> > prototype of what would be considered a wing.
>
> > Such things take time, and still, I do not know if it will work.
>
> > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> to which I would point out that in 2008 most engineers when
> considering structures operating at general aviation speeds and
> stresses would be thinking of composites and molding complex shapes,
> not in terms of bending metal and welded joining.

This presumes that you know what the welds are for, which would be
difficult, as the welders themselves do not even know at this point.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Robert M. Gary

June 9th 08, 04:58 PM

On Jun 8, 10:20*am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 8, 11:07*am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> For sake of those of us who only own MSFS, let's say a C172.

What does MSFS have to do with anything. This is a pilot news group,
not sim. There are sim groups out there that would be more appropriate
for your question.

-Robert,CFII

Le Chaud Lapin

June 9th 08, 05:34 PM

On Jun 9, 10:58*am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Jun 8, 10:20*am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 8, 11:07*am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> > For sake of those of us who only own MSFS, let's say a C172.
>
> What does MSFS have to do with anything. This is a pilot news group,
> not sim. There are sim groups out there that would be more appropriate
> for your question.

MSFS was the means by which I discovered the mechanism.

If I had learned in actual aircraft, the question still would have
been relevant.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 9th 08, 05:34 PM

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in news:a685e391-2f45-4a75-
:

> On Jun 9, 12:34*am, Tina > wrote:
>> Le Chaud Lapin wrote > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Spent 30 minutes at pool yesterday discussing with professional
>> > metalworkers best way to weld a complex joint for important element of
>> > prototype of what would be considered a wing.
>>
>> > Such things take time, and still, I do not know if it will work.
>>
>> > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>>
>> to which I would point out that in 2008 most engineers when
>> considering structures operating at general aviation speeds and
>> stresses would be thinking of composites and molding complex shapes,
>> not in terms of bending metal and welded joining.
>
> This presumes that you know what the welds are for, which would be
> difficult, as the welders themselves do not even know at this point.
>

And neither do you.

Bertie

Le Chaud Lapin

June 9th 08, 05:38 PM

On Jun 9, 3:26*am, Andy Hawkins > wrote:
> Hi.
>
> In article >,
> * * * * * *Le Chaud > wrote:
>
> > Again, this isn't rocket science, but I suspect that other students,
> > like I, had misconception of how it might work, even though it is
> > written in the book how it should work.
>
> A student who's actually sat in an aircraft and carried out the pre-flight
> should have little doubt as to what moving the trim wheel actually does.
>
> In the Warrior I fly, we're taught to put in full back elevator, then wind
> the trim through the limits of its travel, watching the trim tab to ensure
> it moves as it should.

That's interesting. How do you see the trim tab fromm the cockpit?

I've been in Tomahawk and DA-20. I did preflight on DA-20, but didn't
test trim.

> Similarly, in the 'Aircraft General and Principles of Flight' exam we have
> to sit in the UK, the operation of trim is expected to be understood.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 9th 08, 05:58 PM

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in news:964c4756-a3b3-43c5-
:

> On Jun 9, 10:58*am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>> On Jun 8, 10:20*am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 8, 11:07*am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>> > For sake of those of us who only own MSFS, let's say a C172.
>>
>> What does MSFS have to do with anything. This is a pilot news group,
>> not sim. There are sim groups out there that would be more appropriate
>> for your question.
>
> MSFS was the means by which I discovered the mechanism.

No it isn't.
>
> If I had learned in actual aircraft, the question still would have
> been relevant.

Not if you'd asked it. And not in the way it was asked.

Bertie

Maxwell[_2_]

June 9th 08, 06:06 PM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in news:a685e391-2f45-4a75-
> :
>
>> On Jun 9, 12:34 am, Tina > wrote:
>>> Le Chaud Lapin wrote > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Spent 30 minutes at pool yesterday discussing with professional
>>> > metalworkers best way to weld a complex joint for important element of
>>> > prototype of what would be considered a wing.
>>>
>>> > Such things take time, and still, I do not know if it will work.
>>>
>>> > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>>>
>>> to which I would point out that in 2008 most engineers when
>>> considering structures operating at general aviation speeds and
>>> stresses would be thinking of composites and molding complex shapes,
>>> not in terms of bending metal and welded joining.
>>
>> This presumes that you know what the welds are for, which would be
>> difficult, as the welders themselves do not even know at this point.
>>
>
>
> And neither do you.
>
>
> Bertie

And obviously, neither do you.

Little slow over on RAP this morning, Mr. Needsalife?

Tina

June 9th 08, 06:07 PM

On Jun 9, 10:25 am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 9, 12:34 am, Tina > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Le Chaud Lapin wrote > wrote:
>
> > > Spent 30 minutes at pool yesterday discussing with professional
> > > metalworkers best way to weld a complex joint for important element of
> > > prototype of what would be considered a wing.
>
> > > Such things take time, and still, I do not know if it will work.
>
> > > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> > to which I would point out that in 2008 most engineers when
> > considering structures operating at general aviation speeds and
> > stresses would be thinking of composites and molding complex shapes,
> > not in terms of bending metal and welded joining.
>
> This presumes that you know what the welds are for, which would be
> difficult, as the welders themselves do not even know at this point.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

I would point out

1 there are few structural elements of G A airplanes that cannot be
done very effectively in composites, aned complex shapes lend
themselves to molds, not welds

2 if you were seeking advice without disclosing to those whose advice
you were seeking the parameters of concern, you have shown yourself to
be not very competent as an engineer.

I'm glad you don't work for my husband, but you'd have to be an
excellent fraud to survive in our real world for very long. If you
demonstrate those shortcomings so clearly here I would worry about
your career choice. I know it's your choice and decision, but I hope
you're in a position where mistakes will likely not cause great harm.

Good luck in any event.

Robert M. Gary

June 9th 08, 07:06 PM

On Jun 9, 9:34*am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> MSFS was the means by which I discovered the mechanism.
>
> If I had learned in actual aircraft, the question still would have
> been relevant.

I disagree. I've never had a student have trouble understanding trim.
I think this is just something that is confusing for the sim guys. As
such it is more approporiate for a sim group, not a pilot's group.

-Robert, CFII

Robert M. Gary

June 9th 08, 07:07 PM

On Jun 8, 8:54*pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> Spent 30 minutes at pool yesterday discussing with professional
> metalworkers best way to weld a complex joint for important element of
> prototype of what would be considered a wing.

When you go to look for commerical rated pilots to do the test flight
please cross my name off the list.

-Robert, CFII

Gig 601Xl Builder

June 9th 08, 07:19 PM

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

> MSFS was the means by which I discovered the mechanism.
>
> If I had learned in actual aircraft, the question still would have
> been relevant.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>

You never learned of trim until MSFS and you are going to design an
airplane. Fabulous!

Le Chaud Lapin

June 9th 08, 07:31 PM

On Jun 9, 1:06*pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Jun 9, 9:34*am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > MSFS was the means by which I discovered the mechanism.
>
> > If I had learned in actual aircraft, the question still would have
> > been relevant.
>
> I disagree. I've never had a student have trouble understanding trim.
> I think this is just something that is confusing for the sim guys. As
> such it is more approporiate for a sim group, not a pilot's group.

I never had trouble undestanding it. My ground school instructor said
what was written in the Jeppesen book and moved on.

I think if the book said more about how it worked, there would be no
misunderstanding.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin

June 9th 08, 07:36 PM

On Jun 9, 1:19*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > MSFS was the means by which I discovered the mechanism.
>
> > If I had learned in actual aircraft, the question still would have
> > been relevant.
>
> > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> You never learned of trim until MSFS and you are going to design an
> airplane. Fabulous!

Is it really necessary to understand the particular way it was done in
C172 to achieve the same result?

The same thing could be achieved using more electronics, less
mechanics, and the controls might be entirely different.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

More_Flaps

June 9th 08, 08:20 PM

On Jun 10, 4:34*am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 9, 10:58*am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 8, 10:20*am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 8, 11:07*am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> > > For sake of those of us who only own MSFS, let's say a C172.
>
> > What does MSFS have to do with anything. This is a pilot news group,
> > not sim. There are sim groups out there that would be more appropriate
> > for your question.
>
> MSFS was the means by which I discovered the mechanism.
>
> If I had learned in actual aircraft, the question still would have
> been relevant.
>

And now all is clear.

Cheers

Gig 601Xl Builder

June 9th 08, 09:30 PM

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On Jun 9, 1:19 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>>> MSFS was the means by which I discovered the mechanism.
>>> If I had learned in actual aircraft, the question still would have
>>> been relevant.
>>> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>> You never learned of trim until MSFS and you are going to design an
>> airplane. Fabulous!
>
> Is it really necessary to understand the particular way it was done in
> C172 to achieve the same result?
>
> The same thing could be achieved using more electronics, less
> mechanics, and the controls might be entirely different.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

Not knowing about trim by someone who thinks they are going to design an
airplane is like someone who wants to be an electrician and doesn't
understand the difference in AC and DC.

It's just another example that you have no business trying to design an
aircraft.

Le Chaud Lapin

June 9th 08, 10:27 PM

On Jun 9, 3:30*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> Not knowing about trim by someone who thinks they are going to design an
> airplane is like someone who wants to be an electrician and doesn't
> understand the difference in AC and DC.
>
> It's just another example that you have no business trying to design an
> aircraft.

This is a false analogy.

It depends on what is meant by "knowing about trim". The purpose of
trim is clear, and the objective of trim can be achieved in many
ways.

It is not necessary to know all the ways that the objective of trim
can be achieved in order to implement just one mechanism that achieves
the objective.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Robert M. Gary

June 10th 08, 12:19 AM

On Jun 9, 11:31*am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 9, 1:06*pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> I think if the book said more about how it worked, there would be no
> misunderstanding.

I think if you walked up to an actual airplane there would be no
misunderstanding.

-Robert

Le Chaud Lapin

June 10th 08, 04:18 AM

On Jun 9, 6:19*pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Jun 9, 11:31*am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 9, 1:06*pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> > I think if the book said more about how it worked, there would be no
> > misunderstanding.
>
> I think if you walked up to an actual airplane there would be no
> misunderstanding.

My first experience with trim control was neither with a book or a
plane, but with the instructor. I think there are a lot of things
that students are assumed to know that they do not, which can be
frustrating, as there is no difficult in the concepts, but the
ommission of facts, which hurts more than helps. It is the
instructor's choice to determine how deep s/he should delve into the
mechanics of flight.

One instructor might say, "Move trim wheel up or down to relieve
pressure on yoke."

Another might say, "Trim wheel is connected to a trim tab on elevator,
often located on one side of elevator only, and air moving across
elevator results in aerodynamic force vector on tab that acts on
elevator to position elevator so that point of equilibrium is reached,
and such force being sufficient that you no longer need the yoke to
position the elevator. As you can imagine, speed and orientation of
aircraft will have some effect on force...and therefore position of
elevator. Also, if only one tab, force applies asymetrically to
aircraft...etc."

Both these explanations are true, but one of them eliminates the need
for $30 product (or $30,000 aircraft) to know what is going on.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Robert M. Gary

June 10th 08, 04:48 AM

On Jun 9, 8:18*pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> Both these explanations are true, but one of them eliminates the need
> for $30 product (or $30,000 aircraft) to know what is going on.

I find that its pretty difficult to teach students to fly without the
aircraft.

-Robert, CFII

Le Chaud Lapin

June 10th 08, 05:12 AM

On Jun 9, 10:48*pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Jun 9, 8:18*pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > Both these explanations are true, but one of them eliminates the need
> > for $30 product (or $30,000 aircraft) to know what is going on.
>
> I find that its pretty difficult to teach students to fly without the
> aircraft.

That brings us full-circle to a theme that was mildly explored in
another post - what utility, if any, is there in using a simulator to
learn things that do not require actual flying.

So here the question would be whether it is possible to understand how
a trim tab works without ever having flown an aircraft.

I have flown in DA-20 and Tomahawk, but I do not think actual flight
would have been necessary to understand how trim tab works.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Maxwell[_2_]

June 10th 08, 05:30 AM

>"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
>news:9483664d-6897-4777-b4d4-
>
>Another might say, "Trim wheel is connected to a trim tab on elevator,
>often located on one side of elevator only, and air moving across
>elevator results in aerodynamic force vector on tab that acts on
>elevator to position elevator so that point of equilibrium is reached,
>and such force being sufficient that you no longer need the yoke to
>position the elevator. As you can imagine, speed and orientation of
>aircraft will have some effect on force...and therefore position of
>elevator. Also, if only one tab, force applies asymetrically to
>aircraft...etc."
>

I'm glad I wasn't there the day he introduced the radio.

Tina

June 10th 08, 06:28 AM

Lost and Found

Found:

To the village that has lost its idiot: we've found him.

On Jun 9, 11:18 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 9, 6:19 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 9, 11:31 am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 9, 1:06 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> > > I think if the book said more about how it worked, there would be no
> > > misunderstanding.
>
> > I think if you walked up to an actual airplane there would be no
> > misunderstanding.
>
> My first experience with trim control was neither with a book or a
> plane, but with the instructor. I think there are a lot of things
> that students are assumed to know that they do not, which can be
> frustrating, as there is no difficult in the concepts, but the
> ommission of facts, which hurts more than helps. It is the
> instructor's choice to determine how deep s/he should delve into the
> mechanics of flight.
>
> One instructor might say, "Move trim wheel up or down to relieve
> pressure on yoke."
>
> Another might say, "Trim wheel is connected to a trim tab on elevator,
> often located on one side of elevator only, and air moving across
> elevator results in aerodynamic force vector on tab that acts on
> elevator to position elevator so that point of equilibrium is reached,
> and such force being sufficient that you no longer need the yoke to
> position the elevator. As you can imagine, speed and orientation of
> aircraft will have some effect on force...and therefore position of
> elevator. Also, if only one tab, force applies asymetrically to
> aircraft...etc."
>
> Both these explanations are true, but one of them eliminates the need
> for $30 product (or $30,000 aircraft) to know what is going on.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

Robert M. Gary

June 10th 08, 06:29 AM

On Jun 9, 10:28*pm, Tina > wrote:
> Lost and Found
>
> Found:
>
> To the village that has lost its idiot: we've found him.

Ya, 'I'm building an airplane and want to know who the trim works.
Also how do I weld it?' ;)

-Robert

Andy Hawkins

June 10th 08, 09:28 AM

Hi,

In article >,
Le Chaud > wrote:
> That's interesting. How do you see the trim tab fromm the cockpit?

Umm...you move your head?

On a PA28, the trim tab runs most of the length of the moving tailplane.
Pull the yoke back with your left hand, look over your left shoulder and
move the trim wheel through the extent of its travel with you right hand and
watch what happens.

> I've been in Tomahawk and DA-20. I did preflight on DA-20, but didn't
> test trim.

Then you didn't do the pre-flight correctly.

Andy

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 10th 08, 10:12 AM

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

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
>> news:a685e391-2f45-4a75-
>> :
>>
>>> On Jun 9, 12:34 am, Tina > wrote:
>>>> Le Chaud Lapin wrote > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Spent 30 minutes at pool yesterday discussing with professional
>>>> > metalworkers best way to weld a complex joint for important
>>>> > element of prototype of what would be considered a wing.
>>>>
>>>> > Such things take time, and still, I do not know if it will work.
>>>>
>>>> > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>>>>
>>>> to which I would point out that in 2008 most engineers when
>>>> considering structures operating at general aviation speeds and
>>>> stresses would be thinking of composites and molding complex
>>>> shapes, not in terms of bending metal and welded joining.
>>>
>>> This presumes that you know what the welds are for, which would be
>>> difficult, as the welders themselves do not even know at this point.
>>>
>>
>>
>> And neither do you.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> And obviously, neither do you.
>

So enlighten us, fjukktard.

> Little slow over on RAP this morning, Mr. Needsalife?
>

Nope.

Bertie
>
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 10th 08, 10:13 AM

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in news:6b0f0604-da90-4433-
:

> On Jun 9, 1:06*pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>> On Jun 9, 9:34*am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>>
>> > MSFS was the means by which I discovered the mechanism.
>>
>> > If I had learned in actual aircraft, the question still would have
>> > been relevant.
>>
>> I disagree. I've never had a student have trouble understanding trim.
>> I think this is just something that is confusing for the sim guys. As
>> such it is more approporiate for a sim group, not a pilot's group.
>
> I never had trouble undestanding it.

Yes, you have and stil do.

Bertie
>
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 10th 08, 10:14 AM

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in news:8675d961-0cdf-49a3-
:

> On Jun 9, 10:48*pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>> On Jun 9, 8:18*pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>>
>> > Both these explanations are true, but one of them eliminates the need
>> > for $30 product (or $30,000 aircraft) to know what is going on.
>>
>> I find that its pretty difficult to teach students to fly without the
>> aircraft.
>
> That brings us full-circle to a theme that was mildly explored in
> another post - what utility, if any, is there in using a simulator to
> learn things that do not require actual flying.
>
> So here the question would be whether it is possible to understand how
> a trim tab works without ever having flown an aircraft.
>
> I have flown in DA-20 and Tomahawk, but I do not think actual flight
> would have been necessary to understand how trim tab works.

Which is an admission that you do not know how trim works.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 10th 08, 10:16 AM

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:a70d185c-acc8-458f-8551-
:

> On Jun 8, 8:54*pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
>> Spent 30 minutes at pool yesterday discussing with professional
>> metalworkers best way to weld a complex joint for important element of
>> prototype of what would be considered a wing.
>
> When you go to look for commerical rated pilots to do the test flight
> please cross my name off the list.

Hell, I don;t even want to be in the same hemispehre.

Bertie

BDS

June 10th 08, 11:04 AM

Some students want the first approach, some may want the second - it's
probably 95% to 5%. If you assume they all want the more detailed
explanation for everything, you will have frustrated students who either
think that flying is too complicated for them to learn, or who quit because
they are bored.

When I took driver's ed in high school they didn't explain the inner
workings of a carburetor, nor did they need to in order for me to be able to
learn how to drive. Knowing how a carburetor works and having the ability
to tear one down and put it back together again does not make me a better
driver.

You want to know every detail - fine. You just need to find an instructor
who is willing and able to do that for you. As you know, not all of them
are nor do they need to be in order to be able to teach you to fly and fly
well. I suspect you dispute that fact, but history has already proven you
wrong.

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote

It is the
instructor's choice to determine how deep s/he should delve into the
mechanics of flight.

One instructor might say, "Move trim wheel up or down to relieve
pressure on yoke."

Another might say, "Trim wheel is connected to a trim tab on elevator,
often located on one side of elevator only, and air moving across
elevator results in aerodynamic force vector on tab that acts on
elevator to position elevator so that point of equilibrium is reached,
and such force being sufficient that you no longer need the yoke to
position the elevator. As you can imagine, speed and orientation of
aircraft will have some effect on force...and therefore position of
elevator. Also, if only one tab, force applies asymetrically to
aircraft...etc."

Bob Noel

June 10th 08, 11:14 AM

In article >,
Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> So here the question would be whether it is possible to understand how
> a trim tab works without ever having flown an aircraft.
>
> I have flown in DA-20 and Tomahawk, but I do not think actual flight
> would have been necessary to understand how trim tab works.

Knowing how a trim tab works isn't necessary for flying. The pilot
needs to know is how to use trim.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Le Chaud Lapin

June 10th 08, 03:05 PM

On Jun 10, 5:14*am, Bob Noel >
wrote:
> In article >,
> *Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > So here the question would be whether it is possible to understand how
> > a trim tab works without ever having flown an aircraft.
>
> > I have flown in DA-20 and Tomahawk, but I do not think actual flight
> > would have been necessary to understand how trim tab works.
>
> Knowing how a trim tab works isn't necessary for flying. *The pilot
> needs to know is how to use trim.

It is not necessary to know how many things in aircraft work to be
able to fly, but knowing how they work doesn't hurt.

Otherwise companies like Jeppensen, FAA, etc, would not go through
trouble of making all those pretty diagrams (and exams to go with).

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin

June 10th 08, 03:13 PM

On Jun 10, 5:04*am, "BDS" > wrote:
> Some students want the first approach, some may want the second - it's
> probably 95% to 5%. *If you assume they all want the more detailed
> explanation for everything, you will have frustrated students who either
> think that flying is too complicated for them to learn, or who quit because
> they are bored.

There were two extreme examples in my ground school (but not in my
class). One had failed written once already, and they other said one
day, "Forget learning...if you want to pass the exam, this is best
tool you can use: gave me link to web site. It has most of the
questions in easy-to-memorize format." I asked them why not just
learn what they need to know, at least enough to get a 70...and they
both frowned as if I has asked them to learn to change diapers.

> When I took driver's ed in high school they didn't explain the inner
> workings of a carburetor, nor did they need to in order for me to be able to
> learn how to drive. *Knowing how a carburetor works and having the ability
> to tear one down and put it back together again does not make me a better
> driver.

True. I wouldn't expect explanation of GPS in ground school, or
Pascal's principle, etc, but which many situations like this, it
doesn't hurt to know.

> You want to know every detail - fine. *You just need to find an instructor
> who is willing and able to do that for you. *As you know, not all of them
> are nor do they need to be in order to be able to teach you to fly and fly
> well. *I suspect you dispute that fact, but history has already proven you
> wrong.

No, I do not dispute this. I have learned that flying is like many
other things. It is very possible to get by using mostly manipulation
of that which is presented to you.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Peter Dohm

June 10th 08, 03:32 PM

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 9, 10:48 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Jun 9, 8:18 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > Both these explanations are true, but one of them eliminates the need
> > for $30 product (or $30,000 aircraft) to know what is going on.
>
> I find that its pretty difficult to teach students to fly without the
> aircraft.

That brings us full-circle to a theme that was mildly explored in
another post - what utility, if any, is there in using a simulator to
learn things that do not require actual flying.

So here the question would be whether it is possible to understand how
a trim tab works without ever having flown an aircraft.

I have flown in DA-20 and Tomahawk, but I do not think actual flight
would have been necessary to understand how trim tab works.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Well, it's been a long time since I flew a Tomahawk and I never flew the
DA-20, and my Tomahawk manual has gone AWOL; but I don't recall the Tomahawk
having a tab--IIRC, it had a spring system. That gives a different "feel"
and a different contribution to the feel of the primary controls; but there
should have been little motivation for MS to attempt to model those
subtleties--especially since the purchaser has choices in the physical
controls (yokes, etc.) attached to his computer.

Knowing how the systems work can be intellectually interesting for the
technically oriented; essential for designers, builders and mechanics; and
can easily save your life in the event of a systems failure in a real
aircraft. Therefore, most members of this group need to know the systems on
the aircraft they actually fly; but have no need for all of the possible
combinations and permutations.

The bottom line is that you are apparently part of the primary market for
MSFS and it gives you enjoyment. OTOH, most members of this group (who use
it at all) use it as a tool for procedure training, such as practicing
intercepts and approaches, and do so for efficiency rather than
entertainment.

Peter

Le Chaud Lapin

June 10th 08, 03:44 PM

On Jun 10, 9:32*am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> Well, it's been a long time since I flew a Tomahawk and I never flew the
> DA-20, and my Tomahawk manual has gone AWOL; but I don't recall the Tomahawk
> having a tab--IIRC, it had a spring system. *That gives a different "feel"
> and a different contribution to the feel of the primary controls; but there
> should have been little motivation for MS to attempt to model those
> subtleties--especially since the purchaser has choices in the physical
> controls (yokes, etc.) attached to his computer.
>
> Knowing how the systems work can be intellectually interesting for the
> technically oriented; essential for designers, builders and mechanics; and
> can easily save your life in the event of a systems failure in a real
> aircraft. *Therefore, most members of this group need to know the systems on
> the aircraft they actually fly; but have no need for all of the possible
> combinations and permutations.

My OP did not mention anything about combinations and permutations.
It was asked in general, and then just for C172, as an example.

> The bottom line is that you are apparently part of the primary market for
> MSFS and it gives you enjoyment. *OTOH, most members of this group (who use
> it at all) use it as a tool for procedure training, such as practicing
> intercepts and approaches, and do so for efficiency rather than
> entertainment.

Yes, I do enjoy understanding things, but my primary motivation is
efficiency of savings.

It was a lot cheaper to check my understanding of how trim tab works
using a simulator than it was to drive 40km out to airport and fiddle
with a real plane.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Peter Dohm

June 10th 08, 03:45 PM

"BDS" > wrote in message
...
> Some students want the first approach, some may want the second - it's
> probably 95% to 5%. If you assume they all want the more detailed
> explanation for everything, you will have frustrated students who either
> think that flying is too complicated for them to learn, or who quit
> because
> they are bored.
>
> When I took driver's ed in high school they didn't explain the inner
> workings of a carburetor, nor did they need to in order for me to be able
> to
> learn how to drive. Knowing how a carburetor works and having the ability
> to tear one down and put it back together again does not make me a better
> driver.
>
> You want to know every detail - fine. You just need to find an instructor
> who is willing and able to do that for you. As you know, not all of them
> are nor do they need to be in order to be able to teach you to fly and fly
> well. I suspect you dispute that fact, but history has already proven you
> wrong.
>
In general, I agree with you--one certainly didn't need to know the inner
workings of the carburetor. However, it could be very usefull to understand
what the throttle (accelerator) return spring did! That sort of information
is in the POH for any aircraft certified under Part 23.

OTOH, the answers to the original question posted by the OP might be
included over the course of an airframe mechanic's curriculum--or might not.

Peter

Tina

June 10th 08, 04:29 PM

One point about the lift fairy sitting on the tail I'd like to
understand is this -- actually a serious question. As I understand
it, nearly aways the tail is exerting a downward force, since the
center of lift is aft of the center of gravity on general aviation
airplanes (that is true, isn't it -- that the cg is forward of the
center of lift?). If so the tail really is imposing an increased load
on the airplane, adding to its effective weight. The question I have
is, how many pounds of weight is imposed aerodynamically for an
airplane that might be loaded with its CG at the forward limit? I
don't know where the center of lift is on ga airplanes -- a third of
the way aft of the leading edge of the wing is an ok approximation,
but a few inches error on an airplane weighing what ours does at max
could make a huge change in the required force to overcome the nose
heavy moment.

I'm obviously thinking about increased efficiency -- extra weight
added because of either fat people, full fuel, or aerodynamically
imposed, all cost horsepower (OK, watts for you purists) to move
around.

. On Jun 8, 5:18 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Jun 8, 5:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi All,
>
> > This post is primarily directed toward student pilots like myself.
>
> > First, I am not asking because I want to know the answer (I already
> > know), but do a little experiment. I have maybe 7 or 8 different
> > sources of flight information that I rely on for ground school
> > (Jeppesen, FAA Handbooks, etc), and none of them said _how_ it worked
> > in sufficient detail, they only said what one must do to make the
> > plane pitch up or downard.
>
> > So for you students, please do not cheat and do what I did, which is
> > watch the airfoils move as you move the trim control. Also, it would
> > help if you did not think about the correct answer too much, which
> > would lead you to the correct answer, thereby defeating the purpose of
> > my experiment.
>
> > So, without cheating, and without asking an experienced pilot or
> > mechanic,...
>
> > What exactly happens when the trim is adjusted to point the nose
> > upward?
>
> Well, since you frame it as a troll:
> You scare the lift faries to run forward by waving a very nasty bit of
> metal at them.
>
> YAWN
> Cheers

Tauno Voipio

June 10th 08, 06:09 PM

Tina wrote:
> One point about the lift fairy sitting on the tail I'd like to
> understand is this -- actually a serious question. As I understand
> it, nearly aways the tail is exerting a downward force, since the
> center of lift is aft of the center of gravity on general aviation
> airplanes (that is true, isn't it -- that the cg is forward of the
> center of lift?). If so the tail really is imposing an increased load
> on the airplane, adding to its effective weight. The question I have
> is, how many pounds of weight is imposed aerodynamically for an
> airplane that might be loaded with its CG at the forward limit? I
> don't know where the center of lift is on ga airplanes -- a third of
> the way aft of the leading edge of the wing is an ok approximation,
> but a few inches error on an airplane weighing what ours does at max
> could make a huge change in the required force to overcome the nose
> heavy moment.

A rule of thumb is that the force on the horizontal tail
is 5 to 10 per cent of the wing lift. This translates
to a loss of 10 to 20 per cent of the raw gross lift
availbale from the horizontal airfoils.

> I'm obviously thinking about increased efficiency -- extra weight
> added because of either fat people, full fuel, or aerodynamically
> imposed, all cost horsepower (OK, watts for you purists) to move
> around.

This is the reason why modern military aircraft are designed
aerodynamically unstable, and the electronic gnomes of the
flight control system have to work all they can do.

The loss of gross lift is the proce to pay for simple and
safe longitudinal stability.

--

Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

Tina

June 10th 08, 06:22 PM

On Jun 10, 1:09 pm, Tauno Voipio > wrote:
> Tina wrote:
> > One point about the lift fairy sitting on the tail I'd like to
> > understand is this -- actually a serious question. As I understand
> > it, nearly aways the tail is exerting a downward force, since the
> > center of lift is aft of the center of gravity on general aviation
> > airplanes (that is true, isn't it -- that the cg is forward of the
> > center of lift?). If so the tail really is imposing an increased load
> > on the airplane, adding to its effective weight. The question I have
> > is, how many pounds of weight is imposed aerodynamically for an
> > airplane that might be loaded with its CG at the forward limit? I
> > don't know where the center of lift is on ga airplanes -- a third of
> > the way aft of the leading edge of the wing is an ok approximation,
> > but a few inches error on an airplane weighing what ours does at max
> > could make a huge change in the required force to overcome the nose
> > heavy moment.
>
> A rule of thumb is that the force on the horizontal tail
> is 5 to 10 per cent of the wing lift. This translates
> to a loss of 10 to 20 per cent of the raw gross lift
> availbale from the horizontal airfoils.
>
> > I'm obviously thinking about increased efficiency -- extra weight
> > added because of either fat people, full fuel, or aerodynamically
> > imposed, all cost horsepower (OK, watts for you purists) to move
> > around.
>
> This is the reason why modern military aircraft are designed
> aerodynamically unstable, and the electronic gnomes of the
> flight control system have to work all they can do.
>
> The loss of gross lift is the proce to pay for simple and
> safe longitudinal stability.
>
> --
>
> Tauno Voipio
> tauno voipio (at) iki fi

Thanks for the rule of thumb, Tauno. I have watched how busy the
flippers are on fighters when they are in the flare -- no human pilot
is working that hard for control. I knew the fighters are designed to
be aerodynamically unstable.

So the aerodynamic longitudinal stability the tail provides might
cost us 5 to 10%, The obvious question is, do canards buy back that
fraction? They would be offering positive lift, and if they stall
first would provide the same sort of longitudinal stability, wouldn't
they?

be

Tauno Voipio

June 10th 08, 07:14 PM

Tina wrote:
> On Jun 10, 1:09 pm, Tauno Voipio > wrote:
>
>>Tina wrote:
>>
>>>One point about the lift fairy sitting on the tail I'd like to
>>>understand is this -- actually a serious question. As I understand
>>>it, nearly aways the tail is exerting a downward force, since the
>>>center of lift is aft of the center of gravity on general aviation
>>>airplanes (that is true, isn't it -- that the cg is forward of the
>>>center of lift?). If so the tail really is imposing an increased load
>>>on the airplane, adding to its effective weight. The question I have
>>>is, how many pounds of weight is imposed aerodynamically for an
>>>airplane that might be loaded with its CG at the forward limit? I
>>>don't know where the center of lift is on ga airplanes -- a third of
>>>the way aft of the leading edge of the wing is an ok approximation,
>>>but a few inches error on an airplane weighing what ours does at max
>>>could make a huge change in the required force to overcome the nose
>>>heavy moment.
>>
>>A rule of thumb is that the force on the horizontal tail
>>is 5 to 10 per cent of the wing lift. This translates
>>to a loss of 10 to 20 per cent of the raw gross lift
>>availbale from the horizontal airfoils.
>>
>>
>>>I'm obviously thinking about increased efficiency -- extra weight
>>>added because of either fat people, full fuel, or aerodynamically
>>>imposed, all cost horsepower (OK, watts for you purists) to move
>>>around.
>>
>>This is the reason why modern military aircraft are designed
>>aerodynamically unstable, and the electronic gnomes of the
>>flight control system have to work all they can do.
>>
>>The loss of gross lift is the proce to pay for simple and
>>safe longitudinal stability.
>>
>>--
>>
>>Tauno Voipio
>>tauno voipio (at) iki fi
>
>
> Thanks for the rule of thumb, Tauno. I have watched how busy the
> flippers are on fighters when they are in the flare -- no human pilot
> is working that hard for control. I knew the fighters are designed to
> be aerodynamically unstable.
>
> So the aerodynamic longitudinal stability the tail provides might
> cost us 5 to 10%, The obvious question is, do canards buy back that
> fraction? They would be offering positive lift, and if they stall
> first would provide the same sort of longitudinal stability, wouldn't
> they?

Yes - they do bring back some, and this is the reasoning behind
e.g. Rutan's Voyager,

The price is that the canard (front wing) has to stall first
unless you want to fall to ground in reverse when the thing
stalls. The rumours are that the canards are a PITA to land
nicely.

--

-Tauno

Tina

June 10th 08, 07:24 PM

Thanks again. My intelligent but ignorant guess is designing canards
so that they stall first should not take a genius, but there may be
traps I don't see. The world is safe, though, since I don't design
airplane.

The landing issue you raised is pretty neat, since most of us --
especially Mooney drivers -- are careful about airspeed on final and
in the flare, and like to land with the wings almost stalled. But in
the case of a canard if that stalls first I think the airplane would
very enthusiastically want to pitch forward hard enough to bend the
nosewheel!

At least with the stabilizer still flying the nose might be able to be
put down more gently. You've provided some nice insights, thanks.

On Jun 10, 2:14 pm, Tauno Voipio >
wrote:
> Tina wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 1:09 pm, Tauno Voipio > wrote:
>
> >>Tina wrote:
>
> >>>One point about the lift fairy sitting on the tail I'd like to
> >>>understand is this -- actually a serious question. As I understand
> >>>it, nearly aways the tail is exerting a downward force, since theI
> >>>center of lift is aft of the center of gravity on general aviation
> >>>airplanes (that is true, isn't it -- that the cg is forward of the
> >>>center of lift?). If so the tail really is imposing an increased load
> >>>on the airplane, adding to its effective weight. The question I have
> >>>is, how many pounds of weight is imposed aerodynamically for an
> >>>airplane that might be loaded with its CG at the forward limit? I
> >>>don't know where the center of lift is on ga airplanes -- a third of
> >>>the way aft of the leading edge of the wing is an ok approximation,
> >>>but a few inches error on an airplane weighing what ours does at max
> >>>could make a huge change in the required force to overcome the nose
> >>>heavy moment.
>
> >>A rule of thumb is that the force on the horizontal tail
> >>is 5 to 10 per cent of the wing lift. This translates
> >>to a loss of 10 to 20 per cent of the raw gross lift
> >>availbale from the horizontal airfoils.
>
> >>>I'm obviously thinking about increased efficiency -- extra weight
> >>>added because of either fat people, full fuel, or aerodynamically
> >>>imposed, all cost horsepower (OK, watts for you purists) to move
> >>>around.
>
> >>This is the reason why modern military aircraft are designed
> >>aerodynamically unstable, and the electronic gnomes of the
> >>flight control system have to work all they can do.
>
> >>The loss of gross lift is the proce to pay for simple and
> >>safe longitudinal stability.
>
> >>--
>
> >>Tauno Voipio
> >>tauno voipio (at) iki fi
>
> > Thanks for the rule of thumb, Tauno. I have watched how busy the
> > flippers are on fighters when they are in the flare -- no human pilot
> > is working that hard for control. I knew the fighters are designed to
> > be aerodynamically unstable.
>
> > So the aerodynamic longitudinal stability the tail provides might
> > cost us 5 to 10%, The obvious question is, do canards buy back that
> > fraction? They would be offering positive lift, and if they stall
> > first would provide the same sort of longitudinal stability, wouldn't
> > they?
>
> Yes - they do bring back some, and this is the reasoning behind
> e.g. Rutan's Voyager,
>
> The price is that the canard (front wing) has to stall first
> unless you want to fall to ground in reverse when the thing
> stalls. The rumours are that the canards are a PITA to land
> nicely.
>
> --
>
> -Tauno

More_Flaps

June 10th 08, 09:10 PM

On Jun 11, 4:00*am, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Tina >
>
> >I'm obviously thinking about increased efficiency -- extra weight
> >added because of either fat people, full fuel, or aerodynamically
> >imposed, all cost horsepower (OK, watts for you purists) to move
> >around.
>
> I prefer ergs/minute.
>

Small units to make a couch potato feel happy?

Cheers

Ron

June 11th 08, 05:45 AM

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:24:39 -0700 (PDT), Tina >
wrote:

>Thanks again. My intelligent but ignorant guess is designing canards
>so that they stall first should not take a genius, but there may be
>traps I don't see. The world is safe, though, since I don't design
>airplane.
>
>The landing issue you raised is pretty neat, since most of us --
>especially Mooney drivers -- are careful about airspeed on final and
>in the flare, and like to land with the wings almost stalled. But in
>the case of a canard if that stalls first I think the airplane would
>very enthusiastically want to pitch forward hard enough to bend the
>nosewheel!

I haven't flown a canard, but my son has done a lot of flying in one
that was under development. You are right... you don't want to stall
the canard on landing. You fly it all the way to the ground. Three
problems with the canard, as my son saw it, was lack of forward
visibility on landing, drag from the canard in cruise flight (a fixed
canard has to have its AOA greater than the wing and enough surface to
generate lift) and ice shedding off the wings through the propelllor.
Piaggio solved the drag problem, partially, with a three surface
aircraft and a relatively small canard. I believe Beechcraft
attempted to solve it with a variable sweep canard, but I could be
wrong.

>
>At least with the stabilizer still flying the nose might be able to be
>put down more gently. You've provided some nice insights, thanks.

My son says canard landings are like the "Little girl with the curl in
the middle of her forehead"... when they are good, they are very very
good, but when they are bad they are horrid. :-)

Ron Kelley

Tina

June 11th 08, 11:28 AM

On Jun 11, 12:45 am, Ron > wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:24:39 -0700 (PDT), Tina >
> wrote:
>
> >Thanks again. My intelligent but ignorant guess is designing canards
> >so that they stall first should not take a genius, but there may be
> >traps I don't see. The world is safe, though, since I don't design
> >airplane.
>
> >The landing issue you raised is pretty neat, since most of us --
> >especially Mooney drivers -- are careful about airspeed on final and
> >in the flare, and like to land with the wings almost stalled. But in
> >the case of a canard if that stalls first I think the airplane would
> >very enthusiastically want to pitch forward hard enough to bend the
> >nosewheel!
>
> I haven't flown a canard, but my son has done a lot of flying in one
> that was under development. You are right... you don't want to stall
> the canard on landing. You fly it all the way to the ground. Three
> problems with the canard, as my son saw it, was lack of forward
> visibility on landing, drag from the canard in cruise flight (a fixed
> canard has to have its AOA greater than the wing and enough surface to
> generate lift) and ice shedding off the wings through the propelllor.
> Piaggio solved the drag problem, partially, with a three surface
> aircraft and a relatively small canard. I believe Beechcraft
> attempted to solve it with a variable sweep canard, but I could be
> wrong.
>
>
>
> >At least with the stabilizer still flying the nose might be able to be
> >put down more gently. You've provided some nice insights, thanks.
>
> My son says canard landings are like the "Little girl with the curl in
> the middle of her forehead"... when they are good, they are very very
> good, but when they are bad they are horrid. :-)
>
> Ron Kelley

Yes, it seems to me (again, ignorant of the reality) that the airplane
has to be flown onto the runway, rather than stalled onto it. When we
land the airplane is done flying, period, but flying it on means it's
fast enough to take off again.

The higher angle of attack causing drag in cruise trade-off is a bit
of a surprise since what is gained is aerodynamic positive lift from
those little wings in front of the airplane, instead of the negative
lift from those wings most of us have on the back end that are
increasing the aerodynamic load.

Fun discussion, thanks.

Gezellig

June 11th 08, 11:15 PM

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:14:41 GMT, Tauno Voipio wrote:

> Tina wrote:
>> On Jun 10, 1:09 pm, Tauno Voipio > wrote:
>>
>>>Tina wrote:
>>>
>>>>One point about the lift fairy sitting on the tail I'd like to
>>>>understand is this -- actually a serious question. As I understand
>>>>it, nearly aways the tail is exerting a downward force, since the
>>>>center of lift is aft of the center of gravity on general aviation
>>>>airplanes (that is true, isn't it -- that the cg is forward of the
>>>>center of lift?). If so the tail really is imposing an increased load
>>>>on the airplane, adding to its effective weight. The question I have
>>>>is, how many pounds of weight is imposed aerodynamically for an
>>>>airplane that might be loaded with its CG at the forward limit? I
>>>>don't know where the center of lift is on ga airplanes -- a third of
>>>>the way aft of the leading edge of the wing is an ok approximation,
>>>>but a few inches error on an airplane weighing what ours does at max
>>>>could make a huge change in the required force to overcome the nose
>>>>heavy moment.
>>>
>>>A rule of thumb is that the force on the horizontal tail
>>>is 5 to 10 per cent of the wing lift. This translates
>>>to a loss of 10 to 20 per cent of the raw gross lift
>>>availbale from the horizontal airfoils.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm obviously thinking about increased efficiency -- extra weight
>>>>added because of either fat people, full fuel, or aerodynamically
>>>>imposed, all cost horsepower (OK, watts for you purists) to move
>>>>around.
>>>
>>>This is the reason why modern military aircraft are designed
>>>aerodynamically unstable, and the electronic gnomes of the
>>>flight control system have to work all they can do.
>>>
>>>The loss of gross lift is the proce to pay for simple and
>>>safe longitudinal stability.
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>Tauno Voipio
>>>tauno voipio (at) iki fi
>>
>> Thanks for the rule of thumb, Tauno. I have watched how busy the
>> flippers are on fighters when they are in the flare -- no human pilot
>> is working that hard for control. I knew the fighters are designed to
>> be aerodynamically unstable.
>>
>> So the aerodynamic longitudinal stability the tail provides might
>> cost us 5 to 10%, The obvious question is, do canards buy back that
>> fraction? They would be offering positive lift, and if they stall
>> first would provide the same sort of longitudinal stability, wouldn't
>> they?
>
> Yes - they do bring back some, and this is the reasoning behind
> e.g. Rutan's Voyager,
>
> The price is that the canard (front wing) has to stall first
> unless you want to fall to ground in reverse when the thing
> stalls. The rumours are that the canards are a PITA to land
> nicely.

Apparently only to those who don't know how to fly one.

Gezellig

June 11th 08, 11:31 PM

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:24:39 -0700 (PDT), Tina wrote:

> Thanks again. My intelligent but ignorant guess

????

> is designing canards
> so that they stall first should not take a genius, but there may be
> traps I don't see. The world is safe, though, since I don't design
> airplane.
>
> The landing issue you raised is pretty neat, since most of us --
> especially Mooney drivers -- are careful about airspeed on final and
> in the flare, and like to land with the wings almost stalled. But in
> the case of a canard if that stalls first I think the airplane would
> very enthusiastically want to pitch forward hard enough to bend the
> nosewheel!

Basically you want to set up your speeds so the main gear touches before
the canard stalls in a fully flying condition about 85/90 kts. This
gives a wide margin before the canard stalls and reduces the sensitivity
to Xwinds. Easier than a full-stall landing; all control surfaces are
fully functional plne is highly maneuverable all the way to the ground.

> At least with the stabilizer still flying the nose might be able to be
> put down more gently. You've provided some nice insights, thanks.

Thx. lol

Ron

June 12th 08, 04:05 AM

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 03:28:05 -0700 (PDT), Tina >
wrote:

>On Jun 11, 12:45 am, Ron > wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:24:39 -0700 (PDT), Tina >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Thanks again. My intelligent but ignorant guess is designing canards
>> >so that they stall first should not take a genius, but there may be
>> >traps I don't see. The world is safe, though, since I don't design
>> >airplane.
>>
>> >The landing issue you raised is pretty neat, since most of us --
>> >especially Mooney drivers -- are careful about airspeed on final and
>> >in the flare, and like to land with the wings almost stalled. But in
>> >the case of a canard if that stalls first I think the airplane would
>> >very enthusiastically want to pitch forward hard enough to bend the
>> >nosewheel!
>>
>> I haven't flown a canard, but my son has done a lot of flying in one
>> that was under development. You are right... you don't want to stall
>> the canard on landing. You fly it all the way to the ground. Three
>> problems with the canard, as my son saw it, was lack of forward
>> visibility on landing, drag from the canard in cruise flight (a fixed
>> canard has to have its AOA greater than the wing and enough surface to
>> generate lift) and ice shedding off the wings through the propelllor.
>> Piaggio solved the drag problem, partially, with a three surface
>> aircraft and a relatively small canard. I believe Beechcraft
>> attempted to solve it with a variable sweep canard, but I could be
>> wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>> >At least with the stabilizer still flying the nose might be able to be
>> >put down more gently. You've provided some nice insights, thanks.
>>
>> My son says canard landings are like the "Little girl with the curl in
>> the middle of her forehead"... when they are good, they are very very
>> good, but when they are bad they are horrid. :-)
>>
>> Ron Kelley
>
>Yes, it seems to me (again, ignorant of the reality) that the airplane
>has to be flown onto the runway, rather than stalled onto it. When we
>land the airplane is done flying, period, but flying it on means it's
>fast enough to take off again.
>
>The higher angle of attack causing drag in cruise trade-off is a bit
>of a surprise since what is gained is aerodynamic positive lift from
>those little wings in front of the airplane, instead of the negative
>lift from those wings most of us have on the back end that are
>increasing the aerodynamic load.

True, but remember all lift, whether up or down is drag. The
balancing "down lift" from the elevator is much less than the load
bearing "up lift" of the canard.
>
>Fun discussion, thanks.

Yes, the time my son spent with canard aircraft brought out all sorts
of interesting information about canards and the history of trying to
scale up Rutan's original concept Beech Starship. The smaller true
canards like the Long-eze are pretty good aircraft. However there is
a reason why we don't see large (six plus passenger) true canards.
It's the relationship between CG, fuel load, payload and range.
Apparently in the scale up process there is a point where it is no
longer practical.

Ron Kelley

Tina

June 12th 08, 01:08 PM

>
> Yes, the time my son spent with canard aircraft brought out all sorts
> of interesting information about canards and the history of trying to
> scale up Rutan's original concept Beech Starship. The smaller true
> canards like the Long-eze are pretty good aircraft. However there is
> a reason why we don't see large (six plus passenger) true canards.
> It's the relationship between CG, fuel load, payload and range.
> Apparently in the scale up process there is a point where it is no
> longer practical.
>
> Ron Kelley

Would it not also be true that passive stability is not as important
in larger modern airplanes? I would guess (again, I admit being
ignorant of the realities) that adding a 10% aerodynamically induced
increased load on bigger aircraft would be avoided for efficiency
reasons? It might be better to have enough fly by wire and computer
induced stability instead. I don't know enough about this stuff to
even find the back of an envelope, let alone do a calculation there.

Ken S. Tucker

June 12th 08, 05:43 PM

On Jun 12, 5:08 am, Tina > wrote:
> > Yes, the time my son spent with canard aircraft brought out all sorts
> > of interesting information about canards and the history of trying to
> > scale up Rutan's original concept Beech Starship. The smaller true
> > canards like the Long-eze are pretty good aircraft. However there is
> > a reason why we don't see large (six plus passenger) true canards.
> > It's the relationship between CG, fuel load, payload and range.
> > Apparently in the scale up process there is a point where it is no
> > longer practical.
> > Ron Kelley

Hmm, how the XB-70 or this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Sonic_Cruiser

I think the aircraft business is extremely conservative.
KISS applies, also canards are difficult for the average
pilot to understand, (Hey man, you got that thar tail on
the wrong end :-).

> Would it not also be true that passive stability is not as important
> in larger modern airplanes? I would guess (again, I admit being
> ignorant of the realities) that adding a 10% aerodynamically induced
> increased load on bigger aircraft would be avoided for efficiency
> reasons? It might be better to have enough fly by wire and computer
> induced stability instead. I don't know enough about this stuff to
> even find the back of an envelope, let alone do a calculation there.

Canards are NOT simple, I've designed quite a few,
and studied others, especially Rutan's.
I find they can be optimised for a given air speed
and are much better than the conventional lay-out.
The main problem is designing the stall.
Ken

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 12th 08, 08:57 PM

Tina > wrote in news:54595019-a2b0-413e-aea8-
:

>
>>
>> Yes, the time my son spent with canard aircraft brought out all sorts
>> of interesting information about canards and the history of trying to
>> scale up Rutan's original concept Beech Starship. The smaller true
>> canards like the Long-eze are pretty good aircraft. However there is
>> a reason why we don't see large (six plus passenger) true canards.
>> It's the relationship between CG, fuel load, payload and range.
>> Apparently in the scale up process there is a point where it is no
>> longer practical.
>>
>> Ron Kelley
>
> Would it not also be true that passive stability is not as important
> in larger modern airplanes? I would guess (again, I admit being
> ignorant of the realities) that adding a 10% aerodynamically induced
> increased load on bigger aircraft would be avoided for efficiency
> reasons? It might be better to have enough fly by wire and computer
> induced stability instead. I don't know enough about this stuff to
> even find the back of an envelope, let alone do a calculation there.
>

Yeah, that's one of the main reasons they're going for FBW. An aft cg also
improves buffet margins and allows a higher cruise altitude because of
that. Some airplanes pump fuel aft after takeoff to bring the CG well aft.
Even ones that aren't FBW. you have to have the autopilot engaged to
utilise this feature though.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 12th 08, 08:58 PM

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:108f98cd-aed5-
:

> On Jun 12, 5:08 am, Tina > wrote:
>> > Yes, the time my son spent with canard aircraft brought out all
sorts
>> > of interesting information about canards and the history of trying
to
>> > scale up Rutan's original concept Beech Starship. The smaller true
>> > canards like the Long-eze are pretty good aircraft. However there
is
>> > a reason why we don't see large (six plus passenger) true canards.
>> > It's the relationship between CG, fuel load, payload and range.
>> > Apparently in the scale up process there is a point where it is no
>> > longer practical.
>> > Ron Kelley
>
> Hmm, how the XB-70 or this,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Sonic_Cruiser
>
> I think the aircraft business is extremely conservative.
> KISS applies, also canards are difficult for the average
> pilot to understand, (Hey man, you got that thar tail on
> the wrong end :-).

Dat's ok kenny , yu kin fix it wif duk tape.
>
>> Would it not also be true that passive stability is not as important
>> in larger modern airplanes? I would guess (again, I admit being
>> ignorant of the realities) that adding a 10% aerodynamically induced
>> increased load on bigger aircraft would be avoided for efficiency
>> reasons? It might be better to have enough fly by wire and computer
>> induced stability instead. I don't know enough about this stuff to
>> even find the back of an envelope, let alone do a calculation there.
>
> Canards are NOT simple, I've designed quite a few,
> and studied others, especially Rutan's.
> I find they can be optimised for a given air speed
> and are much better than the conventional lay-out.
> The main problem is designing the stall.

Boggle.

Bertie

Ron

June 13th 08, 05:53 AM

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:43:07 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
> wrote:

>On Jun 12, 5:08 am, Tina > wrote:
>> > Yes, the time my son spent with canard aircraft brought out all sorts
>> > of interesting information about canards and the history of trying to
>> > scale up Rutan's original concept Beech Starship. The smaller true
>> > canards like the Long-eze are pretty good aircraft. However there is
>> > a reason why we don't see large (six plus passenger) true canards.
>> > It's the relationship between CG, fuel load, payload and range.
>> > Apparently in the scale up process there is a point where it is no
>> > longer practical.
>> > Ron Kelley
>
>Hmm, how the XB-70 or this,
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Sonic_Cruiser

True, the XB-70 was a qualified success of a large canard type
aircraft. Most of it's problems were due to system failures and
trying to fly at Mach 3.0. The only control issues I know of were
related to overly sensitive pitch response to control inputs. Ref:
http://www.labiker.org/xb70.html

As far as I know the Boeing Sonic Cruiser hasn't gone beyond the
artists concept stage. I guess it's no accident that all the current
crop of passenger jets look alike. That could be partially due to the
reluctance of any large airframe manufacturer to take a gamble on
trying to certify any new "radical" design. Who knows.

Personally, I am intrigued by the three surface aircraft like the
Piaggio. They seem to have done pretty good with their design. One
wonders if given enough time, money and talent, there is some room for
improvement there.

>
>I think the aircraft business is extremely conservative.
>KISS applies, also canards are difficult for the average
>pilot to understand, (Hey man, you got that thar tail on
>the wrong end :-).
>
>> Would it not also be true that passive stability is not as important
>> in larger modern airplanes? I would guess (again, I admit being
>> ignorant of the realities) that adding a 10% aerodynamically induced
>> increased load on bigger aircraft would be avoided for efficiency
>> reasons? It might be better to have enough fly by wire and computer
>> induced stability instead. I don't know enough about this stuff to
>> even find the back of an envelope, let alone do a calculation there.
>
>Canards are NOT simple, I've designed quite a few,
>and studied others, especially Rutan's.
>I find they can be optimised for a given air speed
>and are much better than the conventional lay-out.
>The main problem is designing the stall.
>Ken

Anyone who can design a successful canard aircraft has my respect. I
didn't learn a whole lot about the design aspects from my son (he was
in flight test, not design), but what we did learn was everything
interacted with everything else. The job was interesting, but didn't
last long.

Ron Kelley

Ken S. Tucker

June 13th 08, 07:02 PM

On Jun 12, 9:53 pm, Ron > wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:43:07 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> > wrote:
> >On Jun 12, 5:08 am, Tina > wrote:
> >> > Yes, the time my son spent with canard aircraft brought out all sorts
> >> > of interesting information about canards and the history of trying to
> >> > scale up Rutan's original concept Beech Starship. The smaller true
> >> > canards like the Long-eze are pretty good aircraft. However there is
> >> > a reason why we don't see large (six plus passenger) true canards.
> >> > It's the relationship between CG, fuel load, payload and range.
> >> > Apparently in the scale up process there is a point where it is no
> >> > longer practical.
> >> > Ron Kelley
>
> >Hmm, how the XB-70 or this,
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Sonic_Cruiser
>
> True, the XB-70 was a qualified success of a large canard type
> aircraft. Most of it's problems were due to system failures and
> trying to fly at Mach 3.0. The only control issues I know of were
> related to overly sensitive pitch response to control inputs. Ref:http://www.labiker.org/xb70.html

Thanks for that link.

> As far as I know the Boeing Sonic Cruiser hasn't gone beyond the
> artists concept stage. I guess it's no accident that all the current
> crop of passenger jets look alike. That could be partially due to the
> reluctance of any large airframe manufacturer to take a gamble on
> trying to certify any new "radical" design. Who knows.
>
> Personally, I am intrigued by the three surface aircraft like the
> Piaggio. They seem to have done pretty good with their design. One
> wonders if given enough time, money and talent, there is some room for
> improvement there.

Yes! That Piaggio is one real impressive piece of
aerodynamics, and it sounds very pilot user-friendly.
Very remarkable how they utilized the canard.

> >I think the aircraft business is extremely conservative.
> >KISS applies, also canards are difficult for the average
> >pilot to understand, (Hey man, you got that thar tail on
> >the wrong end :-).
>
> >> Would it not also be true that passive stability is not as important
> >> in larger modern airplanes? I would guess (again, I admit being
> >> ignorant of the realities) that adding a 10% aerodynamically induced
> >> increased load on bigger aircraft would be avoided for efficiency
> >> reasons? It might be better to have enough fly by wire and computer
> >> induced stability instead. I don't know enough about this stuff to
> >> even find the back of an envelope, let alone do a calculation there.
>
> >Canards are NOT simple, I've designed quite a few,
> >and studied others, especially Rutan's.
> >I find they can be optimised for a given air speed
> >and are much better than the conventional lay-out.
> >The main problem is designing the stall.
> >Ken
>
> Anyone who can design a successful canard aircraft has my respect. I
> didn't learn a whole lot about the design aspects from my son (he was
> in flight test, not design), but what we did learn was everything
> interacted with everything else. The job was interesting, but didn't
> last long.

Your son sounds like a cool dude.
The major PITA is designing aircraft to be efficient
at cruise, but safe all the way to stalling, and
recoverable. The difficulty is the movement of the
Center of Lift forward on the main wing as stall
begins.

> Ron Kelley

Regards
Ken

Ron

June 14th 08, 05:23 AM

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:02:35 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
> wrote:

>On Jun 12, 9:53 pm, Ron > wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:43:07 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Jun 12, 5:08 am, Tina > wrote:
>> >> > Yes, the time my son spent with canard aircraft brought out all sorts
>> >> > of interesting information about canards and the history of trying to
>> >> > scale up Rutan's original concept Beech Starship. The smaller true
>> >> > canards like the Long-eze are pretty good aircraft. However there is
>> >> > a reason why we don't see large (six plus passenger) true canards.
>> >> > It's the relationship between CG, fuel load, payload and range.
>> >> > Apparently in the scale up process there is a point where it is no
>> >> > longer practical.
>> >> > Ron Kelley
>>
>> >Hmm, how the XB-70 or this,
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Sonic_Cruiser
>>
>> True, the XB-70 was a qualified success of a large canard type
>> aircraft. Most of it's problems were due to system failures and
>> trying to fly at Mach 3.0. The only control issues I know of were
>> related to overly sensitive pitch response to control inputs. Ref:http://www.labiker.org/xb70.html
>
>Thanks for that link.
>
>> As far as I know the Boeing Sonic Cruiser hasn't gone beyond the
>> artists concept stage. I guess it's no accident that all the current
>> crop of passenger jets look alike. That could be partially due to the
>> reluctance of any large airframe manufacturer to take a gamble on
>> trying to certify any new "radical" design. Who knows.
>>
>> Personally, I am intrigued by the three surface aircraft like the
>> Piaggio. They seem to have done pretty good with their design. One
>> wonders if given enough time, money and talent, there is some room for
>> improvement there.
>
>Yes! That Piaggio is one real impressive piece of
>aerodynamics, and it sounds very pilot user-friendly.
>Very remarkable how they utilized the canard.
>
>> >I think the aircraft business is extremely conservative.
>> >KISS applies, also canards are difficult for the average
>> >pilot to understand, (Hey man, you got that thar tail on
>> >the wrong end :-).
>>
>> >> Would it not also be true that passive stability is not as important
>> >> in larger modern airplanes? I would guess (again, I admit being
>> >> ignorant of the realities) that adding a 10% aerodynamically induced
>> >> increased load on bigger aircraft would be avoided for efficiency
>> >> reasons? It might be better to have enough fly by wire and computer
>> >> induced stability instead. I don't know enough about this stuff to
>> >> even find the back of an envelope, let alone do a calculation there.
>>
>> >Canards are NOT simple, I've designed quite a few,
>> >and studied others, especially Rutan's.
>> >I find they can be optimised for a given air speed
>> >and are much better than the conventional lay-out.
>> >The main problem is designing the stall.
>> >Ken
>>
>> Anyone who can design a successful canard aircraft has my respect. I
>> didn't learn a whole lot about the design aspects from my son (he was
>> in flight test, not design), but what we did learn was everything
>> interacted with everything else. The job was interesting, but didn't
>> last long.
>
>Your son sounds like a cool dude.

Yeah, I kinda like him. ;-)

>The major PITA is designing aircraft to be efficient
>at cruise, but safe all the way to stalling, and
>recoverable. The difficulty is the movement of the
>Center of Lift forward on the main wing as stall
>begins.
>

I seem to remember a problem they had with the fuel load and the
center of lift moving close to (ahead/behind?) the CG. They also had
a problem with getting enough fuel on board (this was a single engine
turboprop) and where to put it to get the range they wanted.

Ron Kelley

Ken S. Tucker

June 14th 08, 08:33 AM

On Jun 13, 9:23 pm, Ron > wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:02:35 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Jun 12, 9:53 pm, Ron > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:43:07 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >On Jun 12, 5:08 am, Tina > wrote:
> >> >> > Yes, the time my son spent with canard aircraft brought out all sorts
> >> >> > of interesting information about canards and the history of trying to
> >> >> > scale up Rutan's original concept Beech Starship. The smaller true
> >> >> > canards like the Long-eze are pretty good aircraft. However there is
> >> >> > a reason why we don't see large (six plus passenger) true canards.
> >> >> > It's the relationship between CG, fuel load, payload and range.
> >> >> > Apparently in the scale up process there is a point where it is no
> >> >> > longer practical.
> >> >> > Ron Kelley
>
> >> >Hmm, how the XB-70 or this,
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Sonic_Cruiser
>
> >> True, the XB-70 was a qualified success of a large canard type
> >> aircraft. Most of it's problems were due to system failures and
> >> trying to fly at Mach 3.0. The only control issues I know of were
> >> related to overly sensitive pitch response to control inputs. Ref:http://www.labiker.org/xb70.html
>
> >Thanks for that link.
>
> >> As far as I know the Boeing Sonic Cruiser hasn't gone beyond the
> >> artists concept stage. I guess it's no accident that all the current
> >> crop of passenger jets look alike. That could be partially due to the
> >> reluctance of any large airframe manufacturer to take a gamble on
> >> trying to certify any new "radical" design. Who knows.
>
> >> Personally, I am intrigued by the three surface aircraft like the
> >> Piaggio. They seem to have done pretty good with their design. One
> >> wonders if given enough time, money and talent, there is some room for
> >> improvement there.
>
> >Yes! That Piaggio is one real impressive piece of
> >aerodynamics, and it sounds very pilot user-friendly.
> >Very remarkable how they utilized the canard.
>
> >> >I think the aircraft business is extremely conservative.
> >> >KISS applies, also canards are difficult for the average
> >> >pilot to understand, (Hey man, you got that thar tail on
> >> >the wrong end :-).
>
> >> >> Would it not also be true that passive stability is not as important
> >> >> in larger modern airplanes? I would guess (again, I admit being
> >> >> ignorant of the realities) that adding a 10% aerodynamically induced
> >> >> increased load on bigger aircraft would be avoided for efficiency
> >> >> reasons? It might be better to have enough fly by wire and computer
> >> >> induced stability instead. I don't know enough about this stuff to
> >> >> even find the back of an envelope, let alone do a calculation there.
>
> >> >Canards are NOT simple, I've designed quite a few,
> >> >and studied others, especially Rutan's.
> >> >I find they can be optimised for a given air speed
> >> >and are much better than the conventional lay-out.
> >> >The main problem is designing the stall.
> >> >Ken
>
> >> Anyone who can design a successful canard aircraft has my respect. I
> >> didn't learn a whole lot about the design aspects from my son (he was
> >> in flight test, not design), but what we did learn was everything
> >> interacted with everything else. The job was interesting, but didn't
> >> last long.
>
> >Your son sounds like a cool dude.
>
> Yeah, I kinda like him. ;-)
>
> >The major PITA is designing aircraft to be efficient
> >at cruise, but safe all the way to stalling, and
> >recoverable. The difficulty is the movement of the
> >Center of Lift forward on the main wing as stall
> >begins.
>
> I seem to remember a problem they had with the fuel load and the
> center of lift moving close to (ahead/behind?) the CG. They also had
> a problem with getting enough fuel on board (this was a single engine
> turboprop) and where to put it to get the range they wanted.

I guess one way to figure that out is to place weigh
scales under the tires and then fill in increments,
to give the exact CG in horizontal pitch, that can
be readily calculated by the ratios. Fuel movement
for various pitchs would affect the CG.
While on the subject of trim, any excessive trim
required *should* indicate a possible excursion
from the appropriate CG - CL relation.

> Ron Kelley

Regards
Ken
PS: I turned on a TV show "ECW" (no volume),
this is Friday PM here...near midnight, and two
busty chicks (a blonde and redhead) dressed up
in vinyl are beating each other up. It looks rough!

Ron

June 14th 08, 11:26 PM

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:33:00 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
> wrote:

>On Jun 13, 9:23 pm, Ron > wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:02:35 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Jun 12, 9:53 pm, Ron > wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:43:07 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >On Jun 12, 5:08 am, Tina > wrote:
>> >> >> > Yes, the time my son spent with canard aircraft brought out all sorts
>> >> >> > of interesting information about canards and the history of trying to
>> >> >> > scale up Rutan's original concept Beech Starship. The smaller true
>> >> >> > canards like the Long-eze are pretty good aircraft. However there is
>> >> >> > a reason why we don't see large (six plus passenger) true canards.
>> >> >> > It's the relationship between CG, fuel load, payload and range.
>> >> >> > Apparently in the scale up process there is a point where it is no
>> >> >> > longer practical.
>> >> >> > Ron Kelley
>>
>> >> >Hmm, how the XB-70 or this,
>> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Sonic_Cruiser
>>
>> >> True, the XB-70 was a qualified success of a large canard type
>> >> aircraft. Most of it's problems were due to system failures and
>> >> trying to fly at Mach 3.0. The only control issues I know of were
>> >> related to overly sensitive pitch response to control inputs. Ref:http://www.labiker.org/xb70.html
>>
>> >Thanks for that link.
>>
>> >> As far as I know the Boeing Sonic Cruiser hasn't gone beyond the
>> >> artists concept stage. I guess it's no accident that all the current
>> >> crop of passenger jets look alike. That could be partially due to the
>> >> reluctance of any large airframe manufacturer to take a gamble on
>> >> trying to certify any new "radical" design. Who knows.
>>
>> >> Personally, I am intrigued by the three surface aircraft like the
>> >> Piaggio. They seem to have done pretty good with their design. One
>> >> wonders if given enough time, money and talent, there is some room for
>> >> improvement there.
>>
>> >Yes! That Piaggio is one real impressive piece of
>> >aerodynamics, and it sounds very pilot user-friendly.
>> >Very remarkable how they utilized the canard.
>>
>> >> >I think the aircraft business is extremely conservative.
>> >> >KISS applies, also canards are difficult for the average
>> >> >pilot to understand, (Hey man, you got that thar tail on
>> >> >the wrong end :-).
>>
>> >> >> Would it not also be true that passive stability is not as important
>> >> >> in larger modern airplanes? I would guess (again, I admit being
>> >> >> ignorant of the realities) that adding a 10% aerodynamically induced
>> >> >> increased load on bigger aircraft would be avoided for efficiency
>> >> >> reasons? It might be better to have enough fly by wire and computer
>> >> >> induced stability instead. I don't know enough about this stuff to
>> >> >> even find the back of an envelope, let alone do a calculation there.
>>
>> >> >Canards are NOT simple, I've designed quite a few,
>> >> >and studied others, especially Rutan's.
>> >> >I find they can be optimised for a given air speed
>> >> >and are much better than the conventional lay-out.
>> >> >The main problem is designing the stall.
>> >> >Ken
>>
>> >> Anyone who can design a successful canard aircraft has my respect. I
>> >> didn't learn a whole lot about the design aspects from my son (he was
>> >> in flight test, not design), but what we did learn was everything
>> >> interacted with everything else. The job was interesting, but didn't
>> >> last long.
>>
>> >Your son sounds like a cool dude.
>>
>> Yeah, I kinda like him. ;-)
>>
>> >The major PITA is designing aircraft to be efficient
>> >at cruise, but safe all the way to stalling, and
>> >recoverable. The difficulty is the movement of the
>> >Center of Lift forward on the main wing as stall
>> >begins.
>>
>> I seem to remember a problem they had with the fuel load and the
>> center of lift moving close to (ahead/behind?) the CG. They also had
>> a problem with getting enough fuel on board (this was a single engine
>> turboprop) and where to put it to get the range they wanted.
>
>I guess one way to figure that out is to place weigh
>scales under the tires and then fill in increments,
>to give the exact CG in horizontal pitch, that can
>be readily calculated by the ratios. Fuel movement
>for various pitchs would affect the CG.
>While on the subject of trim, any excessive trim
>required *should* indicate a possible excursion
>from the appropriate CG - CL relation.

Alas, we'll never know if they could have solved their problems. The
company went out of business. They made some smart moves and some
not-so-smart moves (based on investor funding and lack of funding) and
finally closed the doors.

>Regards
>Ken
>PS: I turned on a TV show "ECW" (no volume),
>this is Friday PM here...near midnight, and two
>busty chicks (a blonde and redhead) dressed up
>in vinyl are beating each other up. It looks rough!

Back on the "old days" we used to watch Roller Derby on TV. Man, you
wouldn't want to mess with those ladies if you didn't want your head
handed to you on a platter.

Ron Kelley

[email protected]

June 15th 08, 05:14 AM

On Jun 10, 9:29 am, Tina > wrote:
> One point about the lift fairy sitting on the tail I'd like to
> understand is this -- actually a serious question. As I understand
> it, nearly aways the tail is exerting a downward force, since the
> center of lift is aft of the center of gravity on general aviation
> airplanes (that is true, isn't it -- that the cg is forward of the
> center of lift?). If so the tail really is imposing an increased load
> on the airplane, adding to its effective weight. The question I have
> is, how many pounds of weight is imposed aerodynamically for an
> airplane that might be loaded with its CG at the forward limit? I
> don't know where the center of lift is on ga airplanes -- a third of
> the way aft of the leading edge of the wing is an ok approximation,
> but a few inches error on an airplane weighing what ours does at max
> could make a huge change in the required force to overcome the nose
> heavy moment.

CG range for most typical lightplane airfoils is 25 to 33%
of the chord, while the centre of lift is around the 40% mark. The
load on the stab/elevator isn't all that big, but it's enough that
we'll teach you in groundschool that the aircraft's stall speed is
lower when loaded to the aft limit than when it's loaded to the
forward limit, and that the cruise speed is a little better at the aft
limit.

Dan

[email protected]

June 15th 08, 09:30 PM

On Jun 9, 12:36 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 9, 1:19 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >

> > You never learned of trim until MSFS and you are going to design an
> > airplane. Fabulous!
>
> Is it really necessary to understand the particular way it was done in
> C172 to achieve the same result?
>
> The same thing could be achieved using more electronics, less
> mechanics, and the controls might be entirely different.

#1. Learn to fly first.
#2. Study the construction of aircraft, best done by taking an
aircraft maintenance course.
#3. THEN think about designing an airplane. No worthwhile design that
I'm aware of has ever been put forward by someone who was unfamiliar
with the way things are now and why they are that way, but I have seen
designs built by folks who "knew better" than everyone else. One of
those, built by a local guy who would take no constructive criticism
of his ideas, stalled at circuit altitude and dropped him, hard, on
the surface of the earth. He was such a stubborn guy that he got up
and walked away, but he neither built nor flew any more airplanes.
Needless to say, this design was neither inspected nor approved nor
licensed to any standard whatever.
Adding electronic controls to something like a trim tab on a
lightplane is one of those "better" ideas that has no basis in
reality. It adds complexity, which adds failure points and cost and
weight, none of which are welcome. It is no more accurate than manual
trim.

Dan

Ken S. Tucker

June 16th 08, 12:18 AM

On Jun 14, 3:26 pm, Ron > wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:33:00 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Jun 13, 9:23 pm, Ron > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:02:35 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >On Jun 12, 9:53 pm, Ron > wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:43:07 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >On Jun 12, 5:08 am, Tina > wrote:
> >> >> >> > Yes, the time my son spent with canard aircraft brought out all sorts
> >> >> >> > of interesting information about canards and the history of trying to
> >> >> >> > scale up Rutan's original concept Beech Starship. The smaller true
> >> >> >> > canards like the Long-eze are pretty good aircraft. However there is
> >> >> >> > a reason why we don't see large (six plus passenger) true canards.
> >> >> >> > It's the relationship between CG, fuel load, payload and range.
> >> >> >> > Apparently in the scale up process there is a point where it is no
> >> >> >> > longer practical.
> >> >> >> > Ron Kelley
>
> >> >> >Hmm, how the XB-70 or this,
> >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Sonic_Cruiser
>
> >> >> True, the XB-70 was a qualified success of a large canard type
> >> >> aircraft. Most of it's problems were due to system failures and
> >> >> trying to fly at Mach 3.0. The only control issues I know of were
> >> >> related to overly sensitive pitch response to control inputs. Ref:http://www.labiker.org/xb70.html
>
> >> >Thanks for that link.
>
> >> >> As far as I know the Boeing Sonic Cruiser hasn't gone beyond the
> >> >> artists concept stage. I guess it's no accident that all the current
> >> >> crop of passenger jets look alike. That could be partially due to the
> >> >> reluctance of any large airframe manufacturer to take a gamble on
> >> >> trying to certify any new "radical" design. Who knows.
>
> >> >> Personally, I am intrigued by the three surface aircraft like the
> >> >> Piaggio. They seem to have done pretty good with their design. One
> >> >> wonders if given enough time, money and talent, there is some room for
> >> >> improvement there.
>
> >> >Yes! That Piaggio is one real impressive piece of
> >> >aerodynamics, and it sounds very pilot user-friendly.
> >> >Very remarkable how they utilized the canard.
>
> >> >> >I think the aircraft business is extremely conservative.
> >> >> >KISS applies, also canards are difficult for the average
> >> >> >pilot to understand, (Hey man, you got that thar tail on
> >> >> >the wrong end :-).
>
> >> >> >> Would it not also be true that passive stability is not as important
> >> >> >> in larger modern airplanes? I would guess (again, I admit being
> >> >> >> ignorant of the realities) that adding a 10% aerodynamically induced
> >> >> >> increased load on bigger aircraft would be avoided for efficiency
> >> >> >> reasons? It might be better to have enough fly by wire and computer
> >> >> >> induced stability instead. I don't know enough about this stuff to
> >> >> >> even find the back of an envelope, let alone do a calculation there.
>
> >> >> >Canards are NOT simple, I've designed quite a few,
> >> >> >and studied others, especially Rutan's.
> >> >> >I find they can be optimised for a given air speed
> >> >> >and are much better than the conventional lay-out.
> >> >> >The main problem is designing the stall.
> >> >> >Ken
>
> >> >> Anyone who can design a successful canard aircraft has my respect. I
> >> >> didn't learn a whole lot about the design aspects from my son (he was
> >> >> in flight test, not design), but what we did learn was everything
> >> >> interacted with everything else. The job was interesting, but didn't
> >> >> last long.
>
> >> >Your son sounds like a cool dude.
>
> >> Yeah, I kinda like him. ;-)
>
> >> >The major PITA is designing aircraft to be efficient
> >> >at cruise, but safe all the way to stalling, and
> >> >recoverable. The difficulty is the movement of the
> >> >Center of Lift forward on the main wing as stall
> >> >begins.
>
> >> I seem to remember a problem they had with the fuel load and the
> >> center of lift moving close to (ahead/behind?) the CG. They also had
> >> a problem with getting enough fuel on board (this was a single engine
> >> turboprop) and where to put it to get the range they wanted.
>
> >I guess one way to figure that out is to place weigh
> >scales under the tires and then fill in increments,
> >to give the exact CG in horizontal pitch, that can
> >be readily calculated by the ratios. Fuel movement
> >for various pitchs would affect the CG.
> >While on the subject of trim, any excessive trim
> >required *should* indicate a possible excursion
> >from the appropriate CG - CL relation.
>
> Alas, we'll never know if they could have solved their problems. The
> company went out of business. They made some smart moves and some
> not-so-smart moves (based on investor funding and lack of funding) and
> finally closed the doors.
>
> >Regards
> >Ken
> >PS: I turned on a TV show "ECW" (no volume),
> >this is Friday PM here...near midnight, and two
> >busty chicks (a blonde and redhead) dressed up
> >in vinyl are beating each other up. It looks rough!
>
> Back on the "old days" we used to watch Roller Derby on TV. Man, you
> wouldn't want to mess with those ladies if you didn't want your head
> handed to you on a platter.

Wow, you're dating yourself. (I'm a 1953 boomer).
Yeah Roller Derby, Sat or Sun afternoon on TV,
and some actually got hurt, but I do respect those
stunt skills as long as it's healthy, (I used to wrestle
and do some martial arts).
I think it's mostly sexxy, with the men sometimes
wearing panties and the gals in vinyl.
I sure hope they would stop getting injured, and
just have fun.
Same as stunt flying, cut the risk, and show off
the skill.

> Ron Kelley

Regards
Ken

Ken S. Tucker

June 16th 08, 12:34 AM

On Jun 15, 1:30 pm, wrote:
> On Jun 9, 12:36 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 9, 1:19 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> > > You never learned of trim until MSFS and you are going to design an
> > > airplane. Fabulous!
>
> > Is it really necessary to understand the particular way it was done in
> > C172 to achieve the same result?
>
> > The same thing could be achieved using more electronics, less
> > mechanics, and the controls might be entirely different.
>
> #1. Learn to fly first.
> #2. Study the construction of aircraft, best done by taking an
> aircraft maintenance course.
> #3. THEN think about designing an airplane. No worthwhile design that
> I'm aware of has ever been put forward by someone who was unfamiliar
> with the way things are now and why they are that way, but I have seen
> designs built by folks who "knew better" than everyone else. One of
> those, built by a local guy who would take no constructive criticism
> of his ideas, stalled at circuit altitude and dropped him, hard, on
> the surface of the earth. He was such a stubborn guy that he got up
> and walked away, but he neither built nor flew any more airplanes.
> Needless to say, this design was neither inspected nor approved nor
> licensed to any standard whatever.
> Adding electronic controls to something like a trim tab on a
> lightplane is one of those "better" ideas that has no basis in
> reality. It adds complexity, which adds failure points and cost and
> weight, none of which are welcome. It is no more accurate than manual
> trim.
> Dan

I concur with Dan on his last two posts, yeah that's
rare, but anyway...
I designed and tested (models) of a fantastic plane,
but when I chose between putting my wife and kids
in my fantastic plane or into a proven (safe) C172,
I chose the C172.
Here's why: If my machine cracked up due to a fault
in my design, and killed my family except for me, I'd
feel obligated to shoot myself, though I wouldn't.

That said, build your machine, put it threw it's paces
then take on a passenger, who knows what the tag
"EXPERMENTAL" means on the side of the A/C,
and have fun.
Ken

Le Chaud Lapin

June 16th 08, 04:42 AM

On Jun 15, 3:30*pm, wrote:
> On Jun 9, 12:36 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 9, 1:19 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> > > You never learned of trim until MSFS and you are going to design an
> > > airplane. Fabulous!
>
> > Is it really necessary to understand the particular way it was done in
> > C172 to achieve the same result?
>
> > The same thing could be achieved using more electronics, less
> > mechanics, and the controls might be entirely different.
>
> #1. Learn to fly first.
> #2. Study the construction of aircraft, best done by taking an
> aircraft maintenance course.

I think the difference here is that I am not looking for something
evolutionary. I think that is a dead-end road. There is so much in
the world to learn, that if a researcher were to take this approach to
every attempt to advance a field, breakthroughs would hardly occur. In
fact, I think it is precisely this mentality that makes the current
process not as fruitful as it could be.

Perhaps the epitome of this type of thinking can be seen on the first
page of this site: http://www.roadabletimes.com/

Question: "How does one make a flying car?"
Answer: "One could start by taking a car and putting wings on it."

This is silly, and it is obvious to everyone now that it is silly, but
to at least one individual, it was not. That man spent countless
hours purusing a dream that would never materialize because his
approach was fundamentally flawed.

Now if one were to take the objectives of CAFE/PAV to make a new type
of vehicle:

http://www.cafefoundation.org/v2/pav_home.php

..and begin by starting with a "reference" design, that person might
share the same fate of he who made the "flying car" of the first link.

Some of you think it is foolish to embark upon a research path without
having a thorough understanding of what has been done. I think not. I
think, in many cases, one can be too familiar with what has been
done. Common knowledge does not necessarily liberate the mind. It
might stifle it. And if it seems arrogant not to follow the path
already tread by great designers, I think it would be even more
arrogant, after having studied what the great designers have done, to
think that one would make extraordinary advancements beyond what those
greats have done, within the same path.

True breakthroughs often require a breach of continuity, and
significant technological advancement occurs when those breaches occur
at semi-regular intervals.

A good example is vacuum tubes versus transistors.

Absolutely zero knowledge of vacuum tubes is required to understand
transistors. There is a bit of ancillary knowledge, like
thermodynamics, band-theory, and electrodynamics that is immediately
transferrable from vacuum tube theory to transitor theory, but
knowlege of vacuum tubes themselves is inessential.

But both act as amplifiers. Both essentially accomplish the same
thing as elements in a larger system.

Now imagine, toward the end of the vacuum tube era, that someone had
proposed to make a new type of amplifier that would be better on
almost every imaginable axes, but that person had no intention of
spending any time studying vacuum tubes. Would it have been necessary
to study vacuum tubes?

This is essentially what you are saying about PAV's. You are saying
that, the best way to proceed is to learn all I can about convential
aircraft. Why is that necessary? It presumes that the method by which
the objective is accomplish is similar to what has already been done
(tractor model, for example).

A better approach might be to make no assumptions at all, but focus on
the end result, then work backward, evaluating extant technologies
(applicable in, say, 2010), keeping a respectible distance from the
prevaling models of aicraft design, just as transitor theorist might
deliberately keep a respectable distance from vacuum tubes.

> #3. THEN think about designing an airplane. No worthwhile design that
> I'm aware of has ever been put forward by someone who was unfamiliar
> with the way things are now and why they are that way, but I have seen
> designs built by folks who "knew better" than everyone else. One of
> those, built by a local guy who would take no constructive criticism
> of his ideas, stalled at circuit altitude and dropped him, hard, on
> the surface of the earth. He was such a stubborn guy that he got up
> and walked away, but he neither built nor flew any more airplanes.
> Needless to say, this design was neither inspected nor approved nor
> licensed to any standard whatever.

A good way to win is avoid races where number of entrants is > 1. It
would be extremely hard for someone in my opinion to make notable
improvement on existing aircraft design. The world is filled with high
skilled, highly trained, thoroughly experience, professional aircraft
designers who spent their lifetimes aiming for that extra 5%.

Extra 5% is not going to make a PAV, so if there is any chance of
succeeding at all, one should avoid paths where best-case scenario is
a 5% improvement.

> * * * * *Adding electronic controls to something like a trim tab on a
> lightplane is one of those "better" ideas that has no basis in
> reality. It adds complexity, which adds failure points and cost and
> weight, none of which are welcome.

I hear a lot of mechanics say this about cars. I think there should
be a qualification made thos these types of statments:

"It adds complexity, which adds failure points and cost and weight,
none of which are welcome, unless the person integrating the
electronics is an electrical engineer unperturbed by the idea of
adding electronic controls to a mechanical system."

> It is no more accurate than manual
> trim.

Perhaps not. But a computer will outperform a human 10x to 1x if the
goal is to optimize fuel consumption with automatic trim control.
There is literally countless scenarios where combination of software/
electronics would far exceed capabilities of a pilot to achieve same
objective.

As aviation advances, there will be much more employment of
electronics and software.

I am simply saying, whatever will exist 50 years from now (when many
of us will be dead, heheh)...whatever that thing is...start thinking
about *that* now, not something that was designed in 1950.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin

June 16th 08, 05:16 AM

On Jun 15, 6:34*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> I concur with Dan on his last two posts, yeah that's
> rare, but anyway...
> I designed and tested (models) of a fantastic plane,
> but when I chose between putting my wife and kids
> in my fantastic plane or into a proven (safe) C172,
> I chose the C172.
> Here's why: If my machine cracked up due to a fault
> in my design, and killed my family except for me, I'd
> feel obligated to shoot myself, though I wouldn't.
>
> That said, build your machine, put it threw it's paces
> then take on a passenger, who knows what the tag
> "EXPERMENTAL" means on the side of the A/C,
> and have fun.
> Ken-

Perhaps there will not be time in my life to see a design realized,
but if I were so fortunate, I would probably do just that...get in it
myself first.

But before doing that, I would let it fly itself over a desert, since
controls would be software anyway.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Ken S. Tucker

June 16th 08, 04:08 PM

On Jun 15, 9:16 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 15, 6:34 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > I concur with Dan on his last two posts, yeah that's
> > rare, but anyway...
> > I designed and tested (models) of a fantastic plane,
> > but when I chose between putting my wife and kids
> > in my fantastic plane or into a proven (safe) C172,
> > I chose the C172.
> > Here's why: If my machine cracked up due to a fault
> > in my design, and killed my family except for me, I'd
> > feel obligated to shoot myself, though I wouldn't.
>
> > That said, build your machine, put it threw it's paces
> > then take on a passenger, who knows what the tag
> > "EXPERMENTAL" means on the side of the A/C,
> > and have fun.
> > Ken-
>
> Perhaps there will not be time in my life to see a design realized,
> but if I were so fortunate, I would probably do just that...get in it
> myself first.
> But before doing that, I would let it fly itself over a desert, since
> controls would be software anyway.

That sounds like a good idea.
A 1/4 scale is good, it can be powered by a cheap
chainsaw motor.
Do you have any general ideas for a lay-out yet?

> -Le Chaud Lapin-

If you lived close by, I'd give you some help.
Ken

[email protected]

June 16th 08, 05:27 PM

On Jun 15, 9:42 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 15, 3:30 pm, wrote:
>
> > On Jun 9, 12:36 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 9, 1:19 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> > > > You never learned of trim until MSFS and you are going to design an
> > > > airplane. Fabulous!
>
> > > Is it really necessary to understand the particular way it was done in
> > > C172 to achieve the same result?
>
> > > The same thing could be achieved using more electronics, less
> > > mechanics, and the controls might be entirely different.
>
> > #1. Learn to fly first.
> > #2. Study the construction of aircraft, best done by taking an
> > aircraft maintenance course.
>
> I think the difference here is that I am not looking for something
> evolutionary. I think that is a dead-end road. There is so much in
> the world to learn, that if a researcher were to take this approach to
> every attempt to advance a field, breakthroughs would hardly occur. In
> fact, I think it is precisely this mentality that makes the current
> process not as fruitful as it could be.
>
> Perhaps the epitome of this type of thinking can be seen on the first
> page of this site: http://www.roadabletimes.com/
>
> Question: "How does one make a flying car?"
> Answer: "One could start by taking a car and putting wings on it."
>
> This is silly, and it is obvious to everyone now that it is silly, but
> to at least one individual, it was not. That man spent countless
> hours purusing a dream that would never materialize because his
> approach was fundamentally flawed.
>
> Now if one were to take the objectives of CAFE/PAV to make a new type
> of vehicle:
>
> http://www.cafefoundation.org/v2/pav_home.php
>
> ..and begin by starting with a "reference" design, that person might
> share the same fate of he who made the "flying car" of the first link.
>
> Some of you think it is foolish to embark upon a research path without
> having a thorough understanding of what has been done. I think not. I
> think, in many cases, one can be too familiar with what has been
> done. Common knowledge does not necessarily liberate the mind. It
> might stifle it. And if it seems arrogant not to follow the path
> already tread by great designers, I think it would be even more
> arrogant, after having studied what the great designers have done, to
> think that one would make extraordinary advancements beyond what those
> greats have done, within the same path.
>
> True breakthroughs often require a breach of continuity, and
> significant technological advancement occurs when those breaches occur
> at semi-regular intervals.
>
> A good example is vacuum tubes versus transistors.
>
> Absolutely zero knowledge of vacuum tubes is required to understand
> transistors. There is a bit of ancillary knowledge, like
> thermodynamics, band-theory, and electrodynamics that is immediately
> transferrable from vacuum tube theory to transitor theory, but
> knowlege of vacuum tubes themselves is inessential.
>
> But both act as amplifiers. Both essentially accomplish the same
> thing as elements in a larger system.
>
> Now imagine, toward the end of the vacuum tube era, that someone had
> proposed to make a new type of amplifier that would be better on
> almost every imaginable axes, but that person had no intention of
> spending any time studying vacuum tubes. Would it have been necessary
> to study vacuum tubes?
>
> This is essentially what you are saying about PAV's. You are saying
> that, the best way to proceed is to learn all I can about convential
> aircraft. Why is that necessary? It presumes that the method by which
> the objective is accomplish is similar to what has already been done
> (tractor model, for example).
>
> A better approach might be to make no assumptions at all, but focus on
> the end result, then work backward, evaluating extant technologies
> (applicable in, say, 2010), keeping a respectible distance from the
> prevaling models of aicraft design, just as transitor theorist might
> deliberately keep a respectable distance from vacuum tubes.
>
> > #3. THEN think about designing an airplane. No worthwhile design that
> > I'm aware of has ever been put forward by someone who was unfamiliar
> > with the way things are now and why they are that way, but I have seen
> > designs built by folks who "knew better" than everyone else. One of
> > those, built by a local guy who would take no constructive criticism
> > of his ideas, stalled at circuit altitude and dropped him, hard, on
> > the surface of the earth. He was such a stubborn guy that he got up
> > and walked away, but he neither built nor flew any more airplanes.
> > Needless to say, this design was neither inspected nor approved nor
> > licensed to any standard whatever.
>
> A good way to win is avoid races where number of entrants is > 1. It
> would be extremely hard for someone in my opinion to make notable
> improvement on existing aircraft design. The world is filled with high
> skilled, highly trained, thoroughly experience, professional aircraft
> designers who spent their lifetimes aiming for that extra 5%.
>
> Extra 5% is not going to make a PAV, so if there is any chance of
> succeeding at all, one should avoid paths where best-case scenario is
> a 5% improvement.
>
> > Adding electronic controls to something like a trim tab on a
> > lightplane is one of those "better" ideas that has no basis in
> > reality. It adds complexity, which adds failure points and cost and
> > weight, none of which are welcome.
>
> I hear a lot of mechanics say this about cars. I think there should
> be a qualification made thos these types of statments:
>
> "It adds complexity, which adds failure points and cost and weight,
> none of which are welcome, unless the person integrating the
> electronics is an electrical engineer unperturbed by the idea of
> adding electronic controls to a mechanical system."
>
> > It is no more accurate than manual
> > trim.
>
> Perhaps not. But a computer will outperform a human 10x to 1x if the
> goal is to optimize fuel consumption with automatic trim control.
> There is literally countless scenarios where combination of software/
> electronics would far exceed capabilities of a pilot to achieve same
> objective.
>
> As aviation advances, there will be much more employment of
> electronics and software.
>
> I am simply saying, whatever will exist 50 years from now (when many
> of us will be dead, heheh)...whatever that thing is...start thinking
> about *that* now, not something that was designed in 1950.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

The guys who invented the transistor (Brattain and all)
understood electricity and were engineers who could design and build
electronic devices. That's the equivalent of knowing how to fly and
how to build aircraft. They were not new to electronics, they didn't
stumble across semiconductors by accident. Solid-state selenium diodes
(not to mention crystal diodes) had already been in use by then for
some time, and so they built on the knowledge of other folks.
Numerous flying cars have been built from scratch, not based
on existing automobiles. It's not something new. Molt Taylor's Aerocar
(late '40s or early '50s; Google it) was certified and produced in
small numbers, but the compromises necessary to achieve flight in a
vehicle that also has to fit on the road and operate in traffic mean
it's a poor car and a poor airplane, and didn't sell well enough to
justify continuing with it. Electronics and computers can't fix the
hard limitations of physics. Over the years I've been around aviation
I can't recall how many attempts have been made in my own time to
build such a machine, and none of them are visible today. It seems
that only the naive attempt it, and find out the hard way about
compromises that ruin the whole idea.
But don't let me discourage you. Maybe some other folks will
be spared the grief just be watching you try it.

Dan

[email protected]

June 16th 08, 05:42 PM

On Jun 15, 9:42 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 15, 3:30 pm, wrote:
> > Adding electronic controls to something like a trim tab on a
> > lightplane is one of those "better" ideas that has no basis in
> > reality. It adds complexity, which adds failure points and cost and
> > weight, none of which are welcome.
>
> I hear a lot of mechanics say this about cars. I think there should
> be a qualification made thos these types of statments...

A good example of an "improved" system in lightplanes was the
electric flaps in 150s and 172s. The old system involved a lever and
some cables. The lever was pulled up to 10, 20, 30 or 40 degrees, so
the lever was the flap position indicator and the cables were the only
other weight involved. The effort to pull the lever up was a point of
complaint with some feeble pilots.
The electric flap system has a gearmotor driving a jackscrew,
microswitches on the jackscrew nut sleeve to limit its travel, a DPDT
momentary switch on the panel, a special wirewound potentiometer in
the wing to follow the bellcrank to drive a flap position indicator on
the panel, and cables and pulleys from the right wing (where the motor
is) to the left wing to drive the left flap.
So now we have the same cables and pulleys (although a little less
of them), a switch that fails regularly (the springs that center it
break), and cable bundle whose connectors at the wing roots and flap
motor assemble get wet and corrode), microswitches that get oil in
them off the jackscrew threads (meaning that sometimes the flaps won't
come down, or worse, that they won't retract on a go-around), a five-
pound motor and jackscrew (which lowers useful load), a special
potentiometer that wears out and costs more than $500 from Cessna and
isn't available anywhere else (bought one a few years ago), a flap
position indicator that costs $475 (bought one last year), and the
loss of the option of raising the flaps right at touchdown to get max
weight on the wheels for braking on short strips, which annoyed no end
a lot of the bush guys who relied on that feature. At least Cessna
left things alone in the 180 and 185, airplane flown by real pilots
who didn't mind pulling a lever.
You can decide if this was an "improvement." Lots of owners who
have had to have this system fixed don't think so.

Dan

Le Chaud Lapin

June 16th 08, 06:55 PM

On Jun 16, 10:08*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Jun 15, 9:16 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 6:34 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > I concur with Dan on his last two posts, yeah that's
> > > rare, but anyway...
> > > I designed and tested (models) of a fantastic plane,
> > > but when I chose between putting my wife and kids
> > > in my fantastic plane or into a proven (safe) C172,
> > > I chose the C172.
> > > Here's why: If my machine cracked up due to a fault
> > > in my design, and killed my family except for me, I'd
> > > feel obligated to shoot myself, though I wouldn't.
>
> > > That said, build your machine, put it threw it's paces
> > > then take on a passenger, who knows what the tag
> > > "EXPERMENTAL" means on the side of the A/C,
> > > and have fun.
> > > Ken-
>
> > Perhaps there will not be time in my life to see a design realized,
> > but if I were so fortunate, I would probably do just that...get in it
> > myself first.
> > But before doing that, I would let it fly itself over a desert, since
> > controls would be software anyway.
>
> That sounds like a good idea.
> A 1/4 scale is good, it can be powered by a cheap
> chainsaw motor.
> Do you have any general ideas for a lay-out yet?
>
> > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> If you lived close by, I'd give you some help.

I live in Austin, Texas.

Some locals and I have been toying around with the idea of renting a
garage for experiments, though I think that is premature. I would
rather use something like SolidWorks to create a model to verify that
the aircraft would fly first. I do have a vague vision of the form-
factor of the aircraft, but as I see it, there are two crucial things
that need to be determined before putting both feet in the water:

1. The PAV I envision relies on an unproven, unorthodox hypothesis of
the origin of lift. I say concept because there is no weird science
involved like anti-gravity machines or anything like that, but if it
were to fly, it would require a reaxmination of the prevailing
theories. This is the hardest part, and I have been concentrating
only on the lift elements. A lot of math and a prototype of certain
control surfaces would help.

2. The second problem is a problem that would be faced by any designer
of a PAV, and that is the power source. The PAV I envision would have
an extremely high reliance on electrial power (the lift engine itself
would rely on electrical power), and this is a hard problem.
Conventional fuels, in 2008, still appear to be the most pratical
approach, even if the fuel is only used to operate a generator.

As far as the engine, I cannot say what it is yet, but can say that it
doesn't use an ICE. ;)

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin

June 16th 08, 07:10 PM

On Jun 16, 11:27*am, wrote:
> * * * * * The guys who invented the transistor (Brattain and all)
> understood electricity and were engineers who could design and build
> electronic devices. That's the equivalent of knowing how to fly and
> how to build aircraft. They were not new to electronics, they didn't
> stumble across semiconductors by accident. Solid-state selenium diodes
> (not to mention crystal diodes) had already been in use by then for
> some time, and so they built on the knowledge of other folks.

There are certain pieces of knowledge that are applicable and certain
pieces that are that. That's all I am saying. I know people who
studied aero/astro for years and had never designed and airplane, but
could if they had to. With regard to transistors, I have only been a
a clean room, and I have never operated say, a chemical-vapor
deposition (CVD) machine, but I know how it works.

The question is essentially:

"What knowledge of old is useful to create the new?"

A key word in this question is "new", which could be interpreted as
"new new" or "incrementally new". Incrementally new is best served by
examining state-of-art and making incremental improvement. New new is
best served by rethinking from a more fundamental perspective. I
contend that, in any field, there is a large percentage of researchers
who do not bother thinking about "new new", because they regard it as
a fruitless endeavor or too risky. But sooner or later, "new new"
reveals itself, and the cylce repeats.

> * * * * * Numerous flying cars have been built from scratch, not based
> on existing automobiles. It's not something new. Molt Taylor's Aerocar
> (late '40s or early '50s; Google it)

I have link on my ready-access favorites of web browser:

http://www.roadabletimes.com/

so yes I have seen it, and many others. Not to criticize this design,
but there is no way I would ever make a flying car that looks like
that. Each time I see someone who has passion for making flying car
take car and mount airplane on top of it, I feel sorry for them - so
much passion...

> was certified and produced in
> small numbers, but the compromises necessary to achieve flight in a
> vehicle that also has to fit on the road and operate in traffic mean
> it's a poor car and a poor airplane, and didn't sell well enough to
> justify continuing with it. Electronics and computers can't fix the
> hard limitations of physics. Over the years I've been around aviation
> I can't recall how many attempts have been made in my own time to
> build such a machine, and none of them are visible today. It seems
> that only the naive attempt it, and find out the hard way about
> compromises that ruin the whole idea.

I have noticed that a lot of people making flying cars have an
incredible urge to "just get something working", with the expectation
that , if it "works", it can be improved with tweaks over time. This
is a dangerous approach. As you noted, one typically ends up with
something of questionable design that enjoys, at best, a lukewarm
reception.

> * * * * *But don't let me discourage you. Maybe some other folks will
> be spared the grief just be watching you try it.

Heheh. :)

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin

June 16th 08, 07:33 PM

On Jun 16, 11:42*am, wrote:
> On Jun 15, 9:42 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 15, 3:30 pm, wrote:
> > > * * * * *Adding electronic controls to something like a trim tab on a
> > > lightplane is one of those "better" ideas that has no basis in
> > > reality. It adds complexity, which adds failure points and cost and
> > > weight, none of which are welcome.
>
> > I hear a lot of mechanics say this about cars. *I think there should
> > be a qualification made thos these types of statments...
>
> * * * A good example of an "improved" system in lightplanes was the
> electric flaps in 150s and 172s. The old system involved a lever and
> some cables. The lever was pulled up to 10, 20, 30 or 40 degrees, so
> the lever was the flap position indicator and the cables were the only
> other weight involved. The effort to pull the lever up was a point of
> complaint with some feeble pilots.
> * * * The electric flap system has a gearmotor driving a jackscrew,
> microswitches on the jackscrew nut sleeve to limit its travel, a DPDT
> momentary switch on the panel, a special wirewound potentiometer in
> the wing to follow the bellcrank to drive a flap position indicator on
> the panel, and cables and pulleys from the right wing (where the motor
> is) to the left wing to drive the left flap.
> * * So now we have the same cables and pulleys (although a little less
> of them), a switch that fails regularly (the springs that center it
> break), and cable bundle whose connectors at the wing roots and flap
> motor assemble get wet and corrode), microswitches that get oil in
> them off the jackscrew threads (meaning that sometimes the flaps won't
> come down, or worse, that they won't retract on a go-around), a five-
> pound motor and jackscrew (which lowers useful load), a special
> potentiometer that wears out and costs more than $500 from Cessna and
> isn't available anywhere else (bought one a few years ago), a flap
> position indicator that costs $475 (bought one last year), and the
> loss of the option of raising the flaps right at touchdown to get max
> weight on the wheels for braking on short strips, which annoyed no end
> a lot of the bush guys who relied on that feature. At least Cessna
> left things alone in the 180 and 185, airplane flown by real pilots
> who didn't mind pulling a lever.
> * * * You can decide if this was an "improvement." Lots of owners who
> have had to have this system fixed don't think so.

This is an excellent anecdote. It illustrates something I tried to
point out in another post a few months ago:

No potentiometer should cost $500.

If it is used to make sure the Queen of England does not slip and fall
while walking down a steep flight of stairs, it should still not cost
$500.

This same phenomenon is present today. I have a bunch of aviataion
related newspapers and magazines that I read see parts and what they
cost. I look especially at electronics parts. The prices are
outrageous. Whatever the excuses - regulation, low-volume - these
prices are simply ridiculous. In many cases, the exact same product
is sold in a different consumer context for a 40% mark-up.

There is rigidity of innovation in the entire aviation industry. Much
of the technology really is 50 years old. New technology is
integrated in patchwork fashion at a sloth's pace. There are many
places where metal is used but plastic would be just as good, but
plastic cannot be used because the designer insists on adding plastic
incrementally.

Much of the new technology's benefit is only realized when gross re-
examination of the design of the system is permitted. Otherwise one
ends up with a $200,000 aircraft with a 90% cost-reduction on a part
that originally cost $400, making new cost $199,960. What good is
that?

This is why I see opportunity. Electrical, and especially software
engineers, have great opportunity to eliminate mechanized control in
aviation (and many other industries for that matter). But as implied
by your anecdote, it should not be done as an afterthought, after
months of haggling where the engineering department finally decides to
"integrate" more electronics, with foot-dragging, coporate in-
fighting, special hiring of disposable engineers skilled in
electronics to contribute to a system that is fundamentally regarded
by the old guard as mechanical...it should be done in context where
the engineering team is _fundamentally_ predisposed to employ software
and electronics at low-cost throughout.

I thought http://www.terrafugia.com was a team, filled with bunch of
MIT grads, that might take this approach, but they themselves stated
in one article that they would refrain from going after the Big-Kill,
meaning pervasive software systems throughout. I think this is
unfortunate.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[email protected]

June 16th 08, 10:47 PM

On Jun 16, 12:33 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> This same phenomenon is present today. I have a bunch of aviataion
> related newspapers and magazines that I read see parts and what they
> cost. I look especially at electronics parts. The prices are
> outrageous. Whatever the excuses - regulation, low-volume - these
> prices are simply ridiculous. In many cases, the exact same product
> is sold in a different consumer context for a 40% mark-up.

Regulation, and the risk of liability, makes all aircraft stuff
expensive. That's not the manufacturer's or designer's fault; that's
OUR fault, those of us who choose to rent or buy airplanes and proceed
to do stupid things with them and get ourselves killed or maimed,
whereupon the manufacturer is sued for many millions because his
product was "defective." Defective because it could not protect me
from my own stupidity. And juries swallow this.
Besides that, the low production numbers make these things more
expensive.
As far as a different lift process, man has been using what Nature
perfected a long time ago: the airfoils as used by birds, controlled
by tails as used by birds. Flapping-wing technology still hasn't been
figured out but someone will do it soon, although it guarantees a
rough ride.
If you want a different lift system, check out the bumblebee.
There's something related to spanwise vortex lift going on there, and
the guys who have had deep-stall crashes in canards (notably the
Velocity) have had some experience with it. Lots of lift generated at
well below stall speeds with an unexpectedly low sink rate. Sometimes
it's a survivable crash. There's potential there.

Dan

Michael Ash

June 17th 08, 03:43 AM

In rec.aviation.student Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 16, 11:27?am, wrote:
>> ? ? ? ? ? The guys who invented the transistor (Brattain and all)
>> understood electricity and were engineers who could design and build
>> electronic devices. That's the equivalent of knowing how to fly and
>> how to build aircraft. They were not new to electronics, they didn't
>> stumble across semiconductors by accident. Solid-state selenium diodes
>> (not to mention crystal diodes) had already been in use by then for
>> some time, and so they built on the knowledge of other folks.
>
> There are certain pieces of knowledge that are applicable and certain
> pieces that are that. That's all I am saying. I know people who
> studied aero/astro for years and had never designed and airplane, but
> could if they had to.

I'm sure they could design a *bad* airplane. Designing a good one takes
experience, not just theoretical knowledge.

> With regard to transistors, I have only been a
> a clean room, and I have never operated say, a chemical-vapor
> deposition (CVD) machine, but I know how it works.

That's miles away from being able to actually invent them from scratch.

> The question is essentially:
>
> "What knowledge of old is useful to create the new?"
>
> A key word in this question is "new", which could be interpreted as
> "new new" or "incrementally new". Incrementally new is best served by
> examining state-of-art and making incremental improvement. New new is
> best served by rethinking from a more fundamental perspective. I
> contend that, in any field, there is a large percentage of researchers
> who do not bother thinking about "new new", because they regard it as
> a fruitless endeavor or too risky. But sooner or later, "new new"
> reveals itself, and the cylce repeats.

I contend that "new new" simply does not exist. *All* advances are
incremental. To the extent that any advance appears to be revolutionary,
it is only because its predecessors are not widely known.

A great example of this is the transistor. To the general public, it looks
like this great sudden flash of innovation. Looking at the actual history
of the field, it was the culmination of years of incremental advances.

If you think I'm wrong, I'd love to see some counterexamples. Especially
if you can give counterexamples which not only were not incremental, but
which were invented by someone who was not already an expert in the field.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Le Chaud Lapin

June 17th 08, 04:51 AM

On Jun 16, 9:43*pm, Michael Ash > wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> > A key word in this question is "new", which could be interpreted as
> > "new new" or "incrementally new". *Incrementally new is best served by
> > examining state-of-art and making incremental improvement. *New new is
> > best served by rethinking from a more fundamental perspective. *I
> > contend that, in any field, there is a large percentage of researchers
> > who do not bother thinking about "new new", because they regard it as
> > a fruitless endeavor or too risky. *But sooner or later, "new new"
> > reveals itself, and the cylce repeats.
>
> I contend that "new new" simply does not exist. *All* advances are
> incremental. To the extent that any advance appears to be revolutionary,
> it is only because its predecessors are not widely known.

There is no such thing as quantized progress in technology of course.
Anything that looks like a wheel can be traced back 1000's of years.
"New new" is a relative concept. One must assess how new is is the
new new relative to what others consider to be the state-of-the-art at
the time.

> A great example of this is the transistor. To the general public, it looks
> like this great sudden flash of innovation. Looking at the actual history
> of the field, it was the culmination of years of incremental advances.

That brings another point. Conception and perfection of the new
cannot be an instantaneous act. Development of the new occurs over
time. So again, newness must be considered within the context of the
state of the art. For example, if a new PAV were created, in 2008,
that satisfied the challenges put forth by CAFE, one could always
claim that its design builds upon the work of others, even though the
general public might regard it as a technological breakthrough:

http://www.cafefoundation.org/v2/pav_home.php

1. Fully glass cockpit? Not new, the LCD's come from ViewSonic, and
has been done already anyway.
2. Software-controlled autostabilization? Not new. Uses long history
of PID and other control theory. Other aircraft do it.
3. Electric generator? Not new at all, on an airplane, or otherwise.
4. Vertical Take-Off & Landing? Old concept. Other aircraft do it.
5. Side-mounted joystick controls instead of a yoke? Not new. Many
aircraft have them.
6. Elimination of foot-pedals? Done already.
7. New means of lift? (no comment..heheh)
8. Elimination of mechanical controls? Not new.
9. Ultra-quiet? Not new. Other aircraft have been made to be ultra-
quiet.

You get the point. With sufficient argument, everthing new can be seen
as old. Even with transistors, one could argue that sand has been here
since very early days of earth, and to some extent, were conducting
long before scientists discovered semiconduction.

Determining whether something is evolutionary versus revolutionary is
inherently subjective, making the truth thereof vulnerable to the
prejudices of the obvservers. Because we have no omniscient being
willing to serve as impartial judge, another path to objectivity must
be found. Strangely, one of the best places to look is toward those
who have no familiarity at all with the intricacies of the subject.

Then, if the criteria of CAFE for a PAV were satisfied, atomically and
simultaneously, for a total cost of say $50,000, we might not regard
it as a revolutionary step, but the general public would.

So revolutionary design, by definition, has a temporal element. The
designer cannot claim revolution if the features of the new are
disseminated in a diarrhetic mode where the period of presentation is
so long that the observers become bored with progress.

A revolutionary system requires the simultaneous application of many
advanced concepts, across technological disciplines, at once.

> If you think I'm wrong, I'd love to see some counterexamples. Especially
> if you can give counterexamples which not only were not incremental, but
> which were invented by someone who was not already an expert in the field.

Hah..tempting, but as mentioned, no matter what I name, the
contraption could always be regarded as evolutionary.

Nevertheless, the notion that revolutionary ideas exist, even though
they are inextricably evolutionary, still prevails.

Here is an example from NASA:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/dec/HQ_05499_concepts.html

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Ken S. Tucker

June 17th 08, 06:57 AM

On Jun 16, 10:55 am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 16, 10:08 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 9:16 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 15, 6:34 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > I concur with Dan on his last two posts, yeah that's
> > > > rare, but anyway...
> > > > I designed and tested (models) of a fantastic plane,
> > > > but when I chose between putting my wife and kids
> > > > in my fantastic plane or into a proven (safe) C172,
> > > > I chose the C172.
> > > > Here's why: If my machine cracked up due to a fault
> > > > in my design, and killed my family except for me, I'd
> > > > feel obligated to shoot myself, though I wouldn't.
>
> > > > That said, build your machine, put it threw it's paces
> > > > then take on a passenger, who knows what the tag
> > > > "EXPERMENTAL" means on the side of the A/C,
> > > > and have fun.
> > > > Ken-
>
> > > Perhaps there will not be time in my life to see a design realized,
> > > but if I were so fortunate, I would probably do just that...get in it
> > > myself first.
> > > But before doing that, I would let it fly itself over a desert, since
> > > controls would be software anyway.
>
> > That sounds like a good idea.
> > A 1/4 scale is good, it can be powered by a cheap
> > chainsaw motor.
> > Do you have any general ideas for a lay-out yet?
>
> > > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> > If you lived close by, I'd give you some help.
>
> I live in Austin, Texas.

I'm currently near Vernon BC.

> Some locals and I have been toying around with the idea of renting a
> garage for experiments, though I think that is premature. I would
> rather use something like SolidWorks to create a model to verify that
> the aircraft would fly first. I do have a vague vision of the form-
> factor of the aircraft, but as I see it, there are two crucial things
> that need to be determined before putting both feet in the water:

> 1. The PAV I envision relies on an unproven, unorthodox hypothesis of
> the origin of lift. I say concept because there is no weird science
> involved like anti-gravity machines or anything like that, but if it
> were to fly, it would require a reaxmination of the prevailing
> theories. This is the hardest part, and I have been concentrating
> only on the lift elements. A lot of math and a prototype of certain
> control surfaces would help.

Perhaps a rotary wing?

> 2. The second problem is a problem that would be faced by any designer
> of a PAV, and that is the power source. The PAV I envision would have
> an extremely high reliance on electrial power (the lift engine itself
> would rely on electrical power), and this is a hard problem.
> Conventional fuels, in 2008, still appear to be the most pratical
> approach, even if the fuel is only used to operate a generator.

Interesting, electrics have made good advances,
maybe regenerative braking during descent such
as some vehicles use while going down hill.
Solar cells on the top of the wings are proven
practical to keep the batteries up to full charge
while sitting on the ground.

> As far as the engine, I cannot say what it is yet, but can say that it
> doesn't use an ICE. ;)

Mean, Green and Lean!
Ken

Le Chaud Lapin

June 18th 08, 03:23 AM

On Jun 17, 12:57*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Jun 16, 10:55 am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 16, 10:08 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 15, 9:16 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 15, 6:34 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > > I concur with Dan on his last two posts, yeah that's
> > > > > rare, but anyway...
> > > > > I designed and tested (models) of a fantastic plane,
> > > > > but when I chose between putting my wife and kids
> > > > > in my fantastic plane or into a proven (safe) C172,
> > > > > I chose the C172.
> > > > > Here's why: If my machine cracked up due to a fault
> > > > > in my design, and killed my family except for me, I'd
> > > > > feel obligated to shoot myself, though I wouldn't.
>
> > > > > That said, build your machine, put it threw it's paces
> > > > > then take on a passenger, who knows what the tag
> > > > > "EXPERMENTAL" means on the side of the A/C,
> > > > > and have fun.
> > > > > Ken-
>
> > > > Perhaps there will not be time in my life to see a design realized,
> > > > but if I were so fortunate, I would probably do just that...get in it
> > > > myself first.
> > > > But before doing that, I would let it fly itself over a desert, since
> > > > controls would be software anyway.
>
> > > That sounds like a good idea.
> > > A 1/4 scale is good, it can be powered by a cheap
> > > chainsaw motor.
> > > Do you have any general ideas for a lay-out yet?
>
> > > > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> > > If you lived close by, I'd give you some help.
>
> > I live in Austin, Texas.
>
> I'm currently near Vernon BC.
>
> > Some locals and I have been toying around with the idea of renting a
> > garage for experiments, though I think that is premature. I would
> > rather use something like SolidWorks to create a model to verify that
> > the aircraft would fly first. I do have a vague vision of the form-
> > factor of the aircraft, but as I see it, there are two crucial things
> > that need to be determined before putting both feet in the water:
> > 1. The PAV I envision relies on an unproven, unorthodox hypothesis of
> > the origin of lift. I say concept because there is no weird science
> > involved like anti-gravity machines or anything like that, but if it
> > were to fly, it would require a reaxmination of the prevailing
> > theories. *This is the hardest part, and I have been concentrating
> > only on the lift elements. *A lot of math and a prototype of certain
> > control surfaces would help.
>
> Perhaps a rotary wing?

Hah...I realized two nights ago before going to bed that the form of
the airfoils about the aircraft is essentially unlimited. What is
really important is understanding why there is a net upward force on
the airfoil. Once that is understood, the sky is the limit. I have
purposely refrained from imagining all the different forms of airfoils
for the time being. It would only use brain cycles I must research
for tedious problems in number theory at present. But my guess is that
the airfoil forms could range from a bland planar to the ultra-
exotic. And yes, the standard rotary wing might be a component.

> > 2. The second problem is a problem that would be faced by any designer
> > of a PAV, and that is the power source. The PAV I envision would have
> > an extremely high reliance on electrial power (the lift engine itself
> > would rely on electrical power), and this is a hard problem.
> > Conventional fuels, in 2008, still appear to be the most pratical
> > approach, even if the fuel is only used to operate a generator.
>
> Interesting, electrics have made good advances,
> maybe regenerative braking during descent such
> as some vehicles use while going down hill.
> Solar cells on the top of the wings are proven
> practical to keep the batteries up to full charge
> while sitting on the ground.

Does not hurt, if the weight problem can be eliminated.

> > As far as the engine, I cannot say what it is yet, but can say that it
> > doesn't use an ICE. ;)
>
> Mean, Green and Lean!

Green is definitely an objective. Electronics is the way to move
forward.

I was looking at the the Honda Clarity FCX today.

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

Apparently they were able to get the size of fuel cell to that of
chassis of desktop computer.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Ken S. Tucker

June 18th 08, 05:10 PM

On Jun 17, 7:23 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 17, 12:57 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 16, 10:55 am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 16, 10:08 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 15, 9:16 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 15, 6:34 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > I concur with Dan on his last two posts, yeah that's
> > > > > > rare, but anyway...
> > > > > > I designed and tested (models) of a fantastic plane,
> > > > > > but when I chose between putting my wife and kids
> > > > > > in my fantastic plane or into a proven (safe) C172,
> > > > > > I chose the C172.
> > > > > > Here's why: If my machine cracked up due to a fault
> > > > > > in my design, and killed my family except for me, I'd
> > > > > > feel obligated to shoot myself, though I wouldn't.
>
> > > > > > That said, build your machine, put it threw it's paces
> > > > > > then take on a passenger, who knows what the tag
> > > > > > "EXPERMENTAL" means on the side of the A/C,
> > > > > > and have fun.
> > > > > > Ken-
>
> > > > > Perhaps there will not be time in my life to see a design realized,
> > > > > but if I were so fortunate, I would probably do just that...get in it
> > > > > myself first.
> > > > > But before doing that, I would let it fly itself over a desert, since
> > > > > controls would be software anyway.
>
> > > > That sounds like a good idea.
> > > > A 1/4 scale is good, it can be powered by a cheap
> > > > chainsaw motor.
> > > > Do you have any general ideas for a lay-out yet?
>
> > > > > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> > > > If you lived close by, I'd give you some help.
>
> > > I live in Austin, Texas.
>
> > I'm currently near Vernon BC.
>
> > > Some locals and I have been toying around with the idea of renting a
> > > garage for experiments, though I think that is premature. I would
> > > rather use something like SolidWorks to create a model to verify that
> > > the aircraft would fly first. I do have a vague vision of the form-
> > > factor of the aircraft, but as I see it, there are two crucial things
> > > that need to be determined before putting both feet in the water:
> > > 1. The PAV I envision relies on an unproven, unorthodox hypothesis of
> > > the origin of lift. I say concept because there is no weird science
> > > involved like anti-gravity machines or anything like that, but if it
> > > were to fly, it would require a reaxmination of the prevailing
> > > theories. This is the hardest part, and I have been concentrating
> > > only on the lift elements. A lot of math and a prototype of certain
> > > control surfaces would help.
>
> > Perhaps a rotary wing?
>
> Hah...I realized two nights ago before going to bed that the form of
> the airfoils about the aircraft is essentially unlimited. What is
> really important is understanding why there is a net upward force on
> the airfoil. Once that is understood, the sky is the limit. I have
> purposely refrained from imagining all the different forms of airfoils
> for the time being. It would only use brain cycles I must research
> for tedious problems in number theory at present. But my guess is that
> the airfoil forms could range from a bland planar to the ultra-
> exotic. And yes, the standard rotary wing might be a component.

Lapin wrote, "standard rotary wing".

Nope, we don't that here, it's been done :-)...
How about a rotary wing using a bi-plane or tri-plane?
Seriously, we could lighten the structure and reduce
the blade radius, possibly too, the RPM.
What do you think?

> > > 2. The second problem is a problem that would be faced by any designer
> > > of a PAV, and that is the power source. The PAV I envision would have
> > > an extremely high reliance on electrial power (the lift engine itself
> > > would rely on electrical power), and this is a hard problem.
> > > Conventional fuels, in 2008, still appear to be the most pratical
> > > approach, even if the fuel is only used to operate a generator.
>
> > Interesting, electrics have made good advances,
> > maybe regenerative braking during descent such
> > as some vehicles use while going down hill.
> > Solar cells on the top of the wings are proven
> > practical to keep the batteries up to full charge
> > while sitting on the ground.
>
> Does not hurt, if the weight problem can be eliminated.

Well I think ICE still has the weight advantage, but
at X-mas I bought a few remote controlled electric
heliocopters that impressed me.
I think a single seat electic helo, with 30 minutes range
would sell. Fly to a place where you swap batteries
and you're off again, very safe even in bad weather.

> > > As far as the engine, I cannot say what it is yet, but can say that it
> > > doesn't use an ICE. ;)
>
> > Mean, Green and Lean!
>
> Green is definitely an objective. Electronics is the way to move
> forward.
>
> I was looking at the the Honda Clarity FCX today.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_FCX_Clarity
>
> Apparently they were able to get the size of fuel cell to that of
> chassis of desktop computer.

I was a "process *sales* engineer" for awhile specializing
in factory automation, so you don't need to sell me on
electronics, that's my job :-).
Let's use an ICE in prototype stage, to keep R&D cost
down then go greener in evolution.
I'd perfer electric because it's quieter.

> -Le Chaud Lapin-

Sounds Good, Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Gig 601Xl Builder

June 18th 08, 07:12 PM

I love it when great minds come together.

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Jun 17, 7:23 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 12:57 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 16, 10:55 am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>>>> On Jun 16, 10:08 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 15, 9:16 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 15, 6:34 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> I'd perfer electric because it's quieter.
>
>> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> Sounds Good, Regards
> Ken S. Tucker

Ken S. Tucker

June 18th 08, 09:17 PM

On Jun 18, 11:12 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> I love it when great minds come together.

Yeah, and electric/electronic chopper that can
sit in your backyard, taking up minimal space
that you fly with a flick of a switch quietly so the
old bag next door can't hear it over her vibrator.

I'm thinking contra-rotating multiple (bi-plane or triplane)
helo blades for yaw control, and I'm still working on
pitch...easy to do, but's what's best??

I'm also lookin' at an emergency chute that can
pop off the top for a 1/2 assed decent, so we might
eliminate pitch control on the blades, and make it
cheaper and simpler, in case of failure, than having
to do reverse auto gyroration.

I bet we could form a team of fella's who could create
a Limited Liabilty Corporation. That's how Boeing began,
21 guys as I recall.

I think we should start a new thread and put this
product together.
What do you think?
Ken S. Tucker

Gig 601Xl Builder

June 18th 08, 10:01 PM

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Jun 18, 11:12 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>> I love it when great minds come together.
>

> What do you think?
> Ken S. Tucker

Ken, since you asked I think first and foremost that you have no
appreciation for sarcasm. Second, I think your helo wouldn't work for
way to many reasons to count.

Ken S. Tucker

June 18th 08, 10:22 PM

On Jun 18, 2:01 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 11:12 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> > wrote:
> >> I love it when great minds come together.
>
> > What do you think?
> > Ken S. Tucker
>
> Ken, since you asked I think first and foremost that you have no
> appreciation for sarcasm. Second, I think your helo wouldn't work for
> way to many reasons to count.

I flew the prototypes they work!
Check out it out for yourself.
Hell, I'll even send you one.
Ken

[email protected]

June 18th 08, 10:35 PM

In rec.aviation.piloting Ken S. Tucker > wrote:
> On Jun 18, 11:12 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
> > I love it when great minds come together.

> Yeah, and electric/electronic chopper that can
> sit in your backyard, taking up minimal space
> that you fly with a flick of a switch quietly so the
> old bag next door can't hear it over her vibrator.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the greater than an order of
magnitude improvements in batteries necessary to do this.

Going to hard to keep all that moving air quiet.

> I'm thinking contra-rotating multiple (bi-plane or triplane)
> helo blades for yaw control, and I'm still working on
> pitch...easy to do, but's what's best??

If it is so easy, why do few have it?

> I'm also lookin' at an emergency chute that can
> pop off the top for a 1/2 assed decent, so we might
> eliminate pitch control on the blades, and make it
> cheaper and simpler, in case of failure, than having
> to do reverse auto gyroration.

Deploying a chute through rotor blades is going to be interesting to
say the least.

> I bet we could form a team of fella's who could create
> a Limited Liabilty Corporation. That's how Boeing began,
> 21 guys as I recall.

I'm sure you can find others that slept through high school science
and haven't a clue.

> I think we should start a new thread and put this
> product together.
> What do you think?
> Ken S. Tucker

That you are 12, maybe 13.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Gig 601Xl Builder

June 18th 08, 10:46 PM

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2:01 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> On Jun 18, 11:12 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
>>> wrote:
>>>> I love it when great minds come together.
>>> What do you think?
>>> Ken S. Tucker
>> Ken, since you asked I think first and foremost that you have no
>> appreciation for sarcasm. Second, I think your helo wouldn't work for
>> way to many reasons to count.
>
> I flew the prototypes they work!
> Check out it out for yourself.
> Hell, I'll even send you one.
> Ken
>

Here's the prototype for a multi-tasking aircraft. It flies in prototype
but I doubt we will see it in full size production.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT60SkXN1UY

Le Chaud Lapin

June 19th 08, 02:56 AM

On Jun 18, 4:46*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> Here's the prototype for a multi-tasking aircraft. It flies in prototype
> but I doubt we will see it in full size production.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT60SkXN1UY- Hide quoted text -

Hah...nice video.

My first inclination of any design would be to reach for modeling
software first, something like SolidWorks. Any other approach is too
risky, IMO.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Ken S. Tucker

June 19th 08, 05:37 AM

On Jun 18, 2:35 pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Ken S. Tucker > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 18, 11:12 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> > wrote:
> > > I love it when great minds come together.
> > Yeah, and electric/electronic chopper that can
> > sit in your backyard, taking up minimal space
> > that you fly with a flick of a switch quietly so the
> > old bag next door can't hear it over her vibrator.
>
> I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the greater than an order of
> magnitude improvements in batteries necessary to do this.
>
> Going to hard to keep all that moving air quiet.
>
> > I'm thinking contra-rotating multiple (bi-plane or triplane)
> > helo blades for yaw control, and I'm still working on
> > pitch...easy to do, but's what's best??
>
> If it is so easy, why do few have it?

It's in production.

> > I'm also lookin' at an emergency chute that can
> > pop off the top for a 1/2 assed decent, so we might
> > eliminate pitch control on the blades, and make it
> > cheaper and simpler, in case of failure, than having
> > to do reverse auto gyroration.
>
> Deploying a chute through rotor blades is going to be interesting to
> say the least.

It's patented. The chute is fired off the hub.

> > I bet we could form a team of fella's who could create
> > a Limited Liabilty Corporation. That's how Boeing began,
> > 21 guys as I recall.
>
> I'm sure you can find others that slept through high school science
> and haven't a clue.

I'm ok with science, insight is needed.

> > I think we should start a new thread and put this
> > product together.
> > What do you think?
> > Ken S. Tucker
>
> That you are 12, maybe 13.

LOL, I wish!
Ken

[email protected]

June 19th 08, 06:05 AM

In rec.aviation.piloting Ken S. Tucker > wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2:35 pm, wrote:
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Ken S. Tucker > wrote:
> >
> > > On Jun 18, 11:12 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> > > wrote:
> > > > I love it when great minds come together.
> > > Yeah, and electric/electronic chopper that can
> > > sit in your backyard, taking up minimal space
> > > that you fly with a flick of a switch quietly so the
> > > old bag next door can't hear it over her vibrator.
> >
> > I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the greater than an order of
> > magnitude improvements in batteries necessary to do this.
> >
> > Going to hard to keep all that moving air quiet.
> >
> > > I'm thinking contra-rotating multiple (bi-plane or triplane)
> > > helo blades for yaw control, and I'm still working on
> > > pitch...easy to do, but's what's best??
> >
> > If it is so easy, why do few have it?

> It's in production.

So was "Howard the Duck" and the Yugo.

> > > I'm also lookin' at an emergency chute that can
> > > pop off the top for a 1/2 assed decent, so we might
> > > eliminate pitch control on the blades, and make it
> > > cheaper and simpler, in case of failure, than having
> > > to do reverse auto gyroration.
> >
> > Deploying a chute through rotor blades is going to be interesting to
> > say the least.

> It's patented. The chute is fired off the hub.

Patents are meaningless as to the value of a concept.

> > > I bet we could form a team of fella's who could create
> > > a Limited Liabilty Corporation. That's how Boeing began,
> > > 21 guys as I recall.
> >
> > I'm sure you can find others that slept through high school science
> > and haven't a clue.

> I'm ok with science, insight is needed.

More like a set of eyeglasses.

> > > I think we should start a new thread and put this
> > > product together.
> > > What do you think?
> > > Ken S. Tucker
> >
> > That you are 12, maybe 13.

> LOL, I wish!

OK, 9 or may be 10?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[email protected]

June 19th 08, 02:26 PM

The notion of first principles, like some of the conservation laws,
seems to be lost on Le Chaud and others. He calls himself an engineer,
but seems not very familiar with Newton, or concepts like energy
density when talking about a prime mover, or. . . but why go on?
Austin has its village idiot.

I am reminded of a derivation that was given in JIR (J. Irreproducible
Results, an outgrowth of the Worm Runners Digest -- points to anyone
who knows what worm runners were) in which a series of equations were
written, followed by a statement "Then magic happens", and then the
desired result.

On Jun 19, 1:05 am, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Ken S. Tucker > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 18, 2:35 pm, wrote:
> > > In rec.aviation.piloting Ken S. Tucker > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 18, 11:12 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > I love it when great minds come together.
> > > > Yeah, and electric/electronic chopper that can
> > > > sit in your backyard, taking up minimal space
> > > > that you fly with a flick of a switch quietly so the
> > > > old bag next door can't hear it over her vibrator.
>
> > > I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the greater than an order of
> > > magnitude improvements in batteries necessary to do this.
>
> > > Going to hard to keep all that moving air quiet.
>
> > > > I'm thinking contra-rotating multiple (bi-plane or triplane)
> > > > helo blades for yaw control, and I'm still working on
> > > > pitch...easy to do, but's what's best??
>
> > > If it is so easy, why do few have it?
> > It's in production.
>
> So was "Howard the Duck" and the Yugo.
>
> > > > I'm also lookin' at an emergency chute that can
> > > > pop off the top for a 1/2 assed decent, so we might
> > > > eliminate pitch control on the blades, and make it
> > > > cheaper and simpler, in case of failure, than having
> > > > to do reverse auto gyroration.
>
> > > Deploying a chute through rotor blades is going to be interesting to
> > > say the least.
> > It's patented. The chute is fired off the hub.
>
> Patents are meaningless as to the value of a concept.
>
> > > > I bet we could form a team of fella's who could create
> > > > a Limited Liabilty Corporation. That's how Boeing began,
> > > > 21 guys as I recall.
>
> > > I'm sure you can find others that slept through high school science
> > > and haven't a clue.
> > I'm ok with science, insight is needed.
>
> More like a set of eyeglasses.
>
> > > > I think we should start a new thread and put this
> > > > product together.
> > > > What do you think?
> > > > Ken S. Tucker
>
> > > That you are 12, maybe 13.
> > LOL, I wish!
>
> OK, 9 or may be 10?
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[email protected]

June 19th 08, 03:40 PM

On Jun 19, 7:26 am, wrote:
> The notion of first principles, like some of the conservation laws,
> seems to be lost on Le Chaud and others. He calls himself an engineer,
> but seems not very familiar with Newton, or concepts like energy
> density when talking about a prime mover, or. . . but why go on?
> Austin has its village idiot.

Lots of guys like that. The idea that electronics can somehow
make an airplane lighter and faster and better, all at once, is just
an obsession with electronics and computers. The idea that electric
power is green is another falsehood; where does most electricity come
from? Hydroelectric dams (devastated valleys), coal (dirty), natural
gas (CO2 and an increasingly limited resource), nuclear (dangerous and
waste problems), and so on. Hydrogen fuel cells, even if they worked
well and were affordable, require hydrogen, which requires the
electrolysis of water, which needs vast amounts of electricity. Other
methods of storage involve heavy metals and their dangers. The idea
that a helicopter is easy to build (with biplane blades, yet, which
was tried in the early years of 'copters) just reveals that the writer
knows nothing of the problems that gyroscopic precession present to
all rotating components of the helicopter, to say nothing of the AOA
and airspeed variations of all rotor blades during flight. Helicopter
flight is appallingly complex and it's a wonder it happened so soon
after fixed-wing flight (35 years or so).

Dan

Le Chaud Lapin

June 19th 08, 05:14 PM

[email protected]

June 19th 08, 05:16 PM

On Jun 19, 10:40 am, wrote:
> On Jun 19, 7:26 am, wrote:
>
> > The notion of first principles, like some of the conservation laws,
> > seems to be lost on Le Chaud and others. He calls himself an engineer,
> > but seems not very familiar with Newton, or concepts like energy
> > density when talking about a prime mover, or. . . but why go on?
> > Austin has its village idiot.
>
> Lots of guys like that. The idea that electronics can somehow
> make an airplane lighter and faster and better, all at once, is just
> an obsession with electronics and computers. The idea that electric
> power is green is another falsehood; where does most electricity come
> from? Hydroelectric dams (devastated valleys), coal (dirty), natural
> gas (CO2 and an increasingly limited resource), nuclear (dangerous and
> waste problems), and so on. Hydrogen fuel cells, even if they worked
> well and were affordable, require hydrogen, which requires the
> electrolysis of water, which needs vast amounts of electricity. Other
> methods of storage involve heavy metals and their dangers. The idea
> that a helicopter is easy to build (with biplane blades, yet, which
> was tried in the early years of 'copters) just reveals that the writer
> knows nothing of the problems that gyroscopic precession present to
> all rotating components of the helicopter, to say nothing of the AOA
> and airspeed variations of all rotor blades during flight. Helicopter
> flight is appallingly complex and it's a wonder it happened so soon
> after fixed-wing flight (35 years or so).
>
> Dan
Here is a frightening thought. If Le Chaud is in fact an engineer,
someone is paying him money for his lack of knowledge of basics, like
the power demand to keep a something with a specific gravity greater
than its environment suspended there. Well, that may be second term
physics. Lift ferries indeed.

I wonder how long it would take me to understand his true worth -- I
do make mistakes in hiring, but rarely in discharging.

Le Chaud Lapin

June 19th 08, 05:20 PM

On Jun 19, 9:40*am, wrote:
> On Jun 19, 7:26 am, wrote:
>
> > The notion of first principles, like some of the conservation laws,
> > seems to be lost on Le Chaud and others. He calls himself an engineer,
> > but seems not very familiar with Newton, or concepts like energy
> > density when talking about a prime mover, or. . . but why go on?
> > Austin has its village idiot.
>
> * * *Lots of guys like that. The idea that electronics can somehow
> make an airplane lighter and faster and better, all at once, is just
> an obsession with electronics and computers.

There seem to be others obssessed:

"As the electronic era grew in the 1960s, so did the idea of aircraft
with electronic flight-control systems. Wires replacing mechanical
devices would give designers greater flexibility in configuration and
in the size and placement of components such as tail surfaces and
wings. A fly-by-wire system also would be smaller, more reliable, and
in military aircraft, much less vulnerable to battle damage. A fly-by-
wire aircraft would also be much more responsive to pilot control
inputs. The result would be more efficient, safer aircraft with
improved performance and design."

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Movie/F-8DFBW/index.html

Also, I have never seen a situation where previously-mechanical system
that wen electronic (and was designed by someone who knew what s/he
was doing), was discovered to be relatively deficiencient compared to
the mechanical method:

"...these new, lighter-weight, fly-by wire system are deficient. We
need to go back to bellcranks, cables, and pulleys to stay ahead of
technological advancement."

-Le Chauld Lapin-

Ken S. Tucker

June 19th 08, 05:43 PM

On Jun 19, 9:20 am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 19, 9:40 am, wrote:
>
> > On Jun 19, 7:26 am, wrote:
>
> > > The notion of first principles, like some of the conservation laws,
> > > seems to be lost on Le Chaud and others. He calls himself an engineer,
> > > but seems not very familiar with Newton, or concepts like energy
> > > density when talking about a prime mover, or. . . but why go on?
> > > Austin has its village idiot.
>
> > Lots of guys like that. The idea that electronics can somehow
> > make an airplane lighter and faster and better, all at once, is just
> > an obsession with electronics and computers.
>
> There seem to be others obssessed:
>
> "As the electronic era grew in the 1960s, so did the idea of aircraft
> with electronic flight-control systems. Wires replacing mechanical
> devices would give designers greater flexibility in configuration and
> in the size and placement of components such as tail surfaces and
> wings. A fly-by-wire system also would be smaller, more reliable, and
> in military aircraft, much less vulnerable to battle damage. A fly-by-
> wire aircraft would also be much more responsive to pilot control
> inputs. The result would be more efficient, safer aircraft with
> improved performance and design."
>
> http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Movie/F-8DFBW/index.html
>
> Also, I have never seen a situation where previously-mechanical system
> that wen electronic (and was designed by someone who knew what s/he
> was doing), was discovered to be relatively deficiencient compared to
> the mechanical method:
>
> "...these new, lighter-weight, fly-by wire system are deficient. We
> need to go back to bellcranks, cables, and pulleys to stay ahead of
> technological advancement."
> -Le Chauld Lapin-

Yup, electronics/electrical is the wave of the future,
and that's from a guy who prefers crank windows to
them thar fancy power windows in cars!
From satellite technology, to your hard-drive motors,
to auto focusing cameras...we're in the digital servo-
-age. May dinosaurs R.I.P.
Ken

BDS[_2_]

June 19th 08, 06:15 PM

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote

> Yup, electronics/electrical is the wave of the future,
> and that's from a guy who prefers crank windows to
> them thar fancy power windows in cars!
> From satellite technology, to your hard-drive motors,
> to auto focusing cameras...we're in the digital servo-
> -age. May dinosaurs R.I.P.
> Ken

It will be difficult to compete with mechanical actuation as far as
reliability vs. cost in a product meant for the consumer market, and in a
critical application such as movement of control surfaces.

Satellite technology won't be cheap enough for GA, and I've had enough
hard-drive, camera, and consumer electronics problems to know I don't want
that level of reliability in an aircraft. If your camera refuses to focus
properly, nobody dies.

Our aircraft uses servos in the autopilot system. In the last 16 years
we've had both the pitch and trim servos fail. Consider the consequences of
that if the servos were the primary means of control.

[email protected]

June 19th 08, 06:42 PM

On Jun 19, 1:15 pm, "BDS" > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote
>
> > Yup, electronics/electrical is the wave of the future,
> > and that's from a guy who prefers crank windows to
> > them thar fancy power windows in cars!
> > From satellite technology, to your hard-drive motors,
> > to auto focusing cameras...we're in the digital servo-
> > -age. May dinosaurs R.I.P.
> > Ken
>
> It will be difficult to compete with mechanical actuation as far as
> reliability vs. cost in a product meant for the consumer market, and in a
> critical application such as movement of control surfaces.
>
> Satellite technology won't be cheap enough for GA, and I've had enough
> hard-drive, camera, and consumer electronics problems to know I don't want
> that level of reliability in an aircraft. If your camera refuses to focus
> properly, nobody dies.
>
> Our aircraft uses servos in the autopilot system. In the last 16 years
> we've had both the pitch and trim servos fail. Consider the consequences of
> that if the servos were the primary means of control.

They are a long way from those kinds of improvements. I'd enjoy
hearing the answer to a problem as simple as this -- it's the kind of
thing an engineer would do to get a sense of the order of magnitude of
the problems (s)he might be facing.

Assume you're really really good and can construct your airplane in a
4 seat configuration with a gross weight of say 1500 pounds. If
someone doesn't like that number, chose a different one. Farther
assume you have a really clean airframe. Given all of that, how much
power would it take just to keep you aloft in 0.08 pounds per cubic
foot of air.

It would be interesting to see Le Chaud determine that from first
principles, or even guess at it looking at sailplane performance. But
that's real world, he'd much rather try to blow smoke.

Le Chaud Lapin

June 19th 08, 07:01 PM

On Jun 19, 12:15*pm, "BDS" > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote
>
> > Yup, electronics/electrical is the wave of the future,
> > and that's from a guy who prefers crank windows to
> > them thar fancy power windows in cars!
> > From satellite technology, to your hard-drive motors,
> > to auto focusing cameras...we're in the digital servo-
> > -age. May dinosaurs R.I.P.
> > Ken
>
> It will be difficult to compete with mechanical actuation as far as
> reliability vs. cost in a product meant for the consumer market, and in a
> critical application such as movement of control surfaces.

I read this a lot in this group (and hear others say it), but I have
trouble believing it. Statements like this must be qualified, IMO. In
addition to what you just wrote, you could add...

"....if the means by which electro-mechanical actuation is done is in
an incremental, ad-hoc, fashion."

As I stated in another post, one could take any antiquated system that
would benefit from modern technology, say, a steam engine from 1850,
and claim: "The governor on this steam engine could benefit from the
use of electronic controls."

Now let's say for sake of argument that the cost of the steam engine
is $50,000US in todays dollars.

If the cost of the new-and-improved governor-assisting electronic
control with PDA is $1200US, the total cost of the machine will be
$51,200US.

See what is happening here? The gadget that was supposed to be so
wonderful just increased cost of aircraft by 2%. Not good.

Patchwork improvement is often a poor means of integrating new
technology into an old system. If a component is simply retrofitted,
then one should not expect anything more than that which happens when
one retrofits new components onto old systems.

A better alternative is to take a systemic approach. With the systemic
approach, gross changes are made, throughout the system, deliberately
and conscientiously from the outset. Then, certain hard questions need
no longer be asked:

Question: "This servo-motor is nice, but you still haven't said how do
you stop the XYZ from leaking?"
Answer: "The new system no longer uses an XYZ."

In any new system, there will be hundreds, if not thousands of
questions/answer pairs like these. If this principle is employed
consistently, the new system really will be new, and then the cost-
savings will be realized.

There will come, however, the problem of risk: the new system, being
new, will be unproven, so in all likelihood, several of the prototypes
will fail (crash). Not a problem. After all, crashing was how the
whole thing started in the first place. Since it is known in advance
that crashing is inevitable, it can be managed, meaning that it can be
regarded as a monetary cost.

The idea here is that the new technological components are not
inherently bad. It is their application that might bad, and this
application will vary from engineer to engineer, organization to
organization, industry to industry. Intellectual discipline and
willingness to let competence takes its proper place is essential.

Once that management has taken place, the end result will be a product
that possesses no more risk as any sosphisticated device that has the
potential to fail and result in loss of life. There are many such
devices, and they work just fine every day.

> Satellite technology won't be cheap enough for GA, and I've had enough
> hard-drive, camera, and consumer electronics problems to know I don't want
> that level of reliability in an aircraft. *If your camera refuses to focus
> properly, nobody dies.

In a few years, it will be possible to use ground-based digital radios
for even the highest-flying GA aircraft. Since commoditized
components are so cheap, redunancy can be employed throughout. Take
for example, the G1000. For the cost of synthetic-terrain upgrade, I
can drive 5km down the road and buy 25 fully-loaded PC's, each with
200GB hard disk, LCD monitor, 1GB RAM, keyboard, mouse, Ethernet, Wi-
Fi dongle (but not Wi-Max), FM radio, MP3 player (and practically any
other coding standard), DVD player (and burner), flight data recorder,
flight planner, uncommonly sophisticated flight calculator. Each one
of these PC's would cost roughly the same amount it cost of fill the
tank on some Cessna's. And all 25 PC's for only an upgrade.

I find it interesting that my source of this information implies that
Garmin is charging $10,000 for what is essentially a $45 product:

http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/avidyne-versus-garmin

> Our aircraft uses servos in the autopilot system. *In the last 16 years
> we've had both the pitch and trim servos fail. *Consider the consequences of
> that if the servos were the primary means of control.

Servos are used in many applications, some of them borderline hostile
(certainly more hostile than Earth's atmosphere).

If the failure rate of electro-mechanical components in aviation is
significantly higher than the failure rate in other industries, the
aviation designer is mostly likely doing s/she should not be doing.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[email protected]

June 19th 08, 07:11 PM

On Jun 19, 11:15 am, "BDS" > wrote:

> It will be difficult to compete with mechanical actuation as far as
> reliability vs. cost in a product meant for the consumer market, and in a
> critical application such as movement of control surfaces.

> Our aircraft uses servos in the autopilot system. In the last 16 years
> we've had both the pitch and trim servos fail. Consider the consequences of
> that if the servos were the primary means of control.

Fly-by-wire makes sense in large airplanes or in agile
fighters. The lifting capacity of transports or fighters is an order
of magnitude higher than small airplanes because of much better power-
to-weight ratios, much higher airspeeds, and much more wing area. The
electronics to control those systems weigh every bit as much as the
electronics to control the systems in a small airplane; the only
difference is the size of the hydraulic actuators and pumps. In small
aircraft, where the ratio between stall speed and cruise speed might
be 2:1, maybe 3:1 max, instead of the 4:1 or much more in FBW system
aircraft, the extra weight makes no sense whatever. Just think of the
hydraulic pumps and their actuators (or bigger alternators and primary
servos). Lots and lots of weight. In a small two-place airplane that
has no more than a 600 pound useful load, they are simply not
welcome.
The distance between the pilot and control surfaces also makes
a difference, and the need for some sort of boost anyway in larger
airplanes means that FBW becomes more of a minor change rather than
the addition of a whole system.
But someone will do it for light aircraft, and they'll try
to sell it. It will be expensive (so it won't sell well), heavy (so
the utility we be gone), and will remove the pilot from the feel of
the air (and there's goes much of the fun). Kind of like putting anti-
skid brakes and power steering and an automatic transmission on an
Indy race car; it's just plain dumb. Might sell a few to people who
don't really want to do the flying. Couch potato pilots.
These ideas always seem to come from folks who don't have
licenses nor any experience with airplane construction. I've met them
many times, and instead of building a known, trustworthy aircraft
design for a first project, they get way out in left field somewhere
with their ideas and end up wasting years and a huge pile of money on
something that just refuses to work. A guy is Saskatchewan did this a
few years ago; designed and built an "inexpensive fighter" that could
be produced in large numbers for "national defense;" it used a crazy
stacked airfoil system and a 100-hp engine and prop, and wouldn't get
more than a foot off the ground no matter what. Even the anemic and
clunky and primitive Cessna 150 flies far better on the same engine.
Improvement, indeed. He kept trying and kept throwing money away.

Dan

Allen[_1_]

June 19th 08, 07:15 PM

This guy might be beating you to the punch!

From the June 19 AvWebflash:

Florida Researcher Proposes Wingless Flight

An engineer at the University of Florida has unveiled a design for a "flying
saucer" that can take off vertically, hover, and fly, and it has no wings or
propeller -- it doesn't have any moving parts at all. "This is a very novel
concept, and if it's successful, it will be revolutionary," said Subrata
Roy, the ship's inventor, who applied for a patent on it last week. "If
successful, we will have an aircraft, a saucer and a helicopter all in one
embodiment." The saucer is propelled by a force called magnetohydrodynamics,
which is created when a current or a magnetic field is passed through a
fluid. By interacting with the atmosphere, the force is able to create lift
and momentum and provides stability against wind gusts. The ship's surface
is partially hollow and continuously curved, like an electromagnetic flying
bundt pan. Unfortunately, it seems the technique is likely to work better in
space, where pesky things like gravity and drag are minimized.

Roy, however, is hopeful that his creation can prove useful here on Earth.
He calls it a "wingless electromagnetic air vehicle," or WEAV, and plans to
build a six-inch-wide prototype powered by on-board batteries.

--

*H. Allen Smith*
WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 19, 9:40 am, wrote:
> On Jun 19, 7:26 am, wrote:
>
> > The notion of first principles, like some of the conservation laws,
> > seems to be lost on Le Chaud and others. He calls himself an engineer,
> > but seems not very familiar with Newton, or concepts like energy
> > density when talking about a prime mover, or. . . but why go on?
> > Austin has its village idiot.
>
> Lots of guys like that. The idea that electronics can somehow
> make an airplane lighter and faster and better, all at once, is just
> an obsession with electronics and computers.

This same statement could be made about the application of every new
way of doing things versus the old.

How could one say whether electronics would result in overall design
improvement if one does not yet know how the electronics would be
applied?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

BDS[_2_]

June 19th 08, 07:29 PM

"Le Chaud Lapin" > wrote

[Servos are used in many applications, some of them borderline hostile
(certainly more hostile than Earth's atmosphere).]

Sure, but you won't find any of those in a GA aircraft - they probably cost
more than the entire aircraft does right now without them!

[If the failure rate of electro-mechanical components in aviation is
significantly higher than the failure rate in other industries, the
aviation designer is mostly likely doing s/she should not be doing.]

Everything you propose is likely possible, or may be possible some day - who
can say. Good luck to you though - I hope your design is a success.

Larry Dighera

June 19th 08, 07:37 PM

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:40:55 -0700 (PDT),
wrote in
>:

>The idea that electric power is green is another falsehood;

Electricity generated by photovoltaics seems pretty environmentally
friendly to me.

>where does most electricity come from?

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/cleancoal/
As the President said in presenting his National Energy Policy to
the American public on May 17, 2001, "More than half of the
electricity generated in America today comes from coal.

>Hydroelectric dams (devastated valleys)

True. There is quite an environmental movement afoot to demolish dams
and restore the valleys they flood. Here's an example:

http://www.sierraclub.org/ca/hetchhetchy/
http://www.hetchhetchy.org/

>coal (dirty),

Apparently there's hope that coal fired electrical generating plants
can be made more efficient and less polluting:

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/cleancoal/
The Clean Coal Power Initiative is providing government
co-financing for new coal technologies that can help utilities
meet the President's Clear Skies Initiative to cut sulfur,
nitrogen and mercury pollutants from power plants by nearly 70
percent by the year 2018. Also, some of the early projects are
showing ways to reduce greenhouse emissions by boosting the
efficiency by which coal plants convert coal to electricity or
other energy forms.

>natural gas (CO2 and an increasingly limited resource),

Virtually anything that burns atmospheric oxygen produces CO2. But
the vast reserves of methane hydrates seems to contradict your
assertion that natural gas resources are declining significantly:

http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html
Gas hydrates occur abundantly in nature, both in Arctic regions
and in marine sediments. Gas hydrate is a crystalline solid
consisting of gas molecules, usually methane, each surrounded by a
cage of water molecules. It looks very much like water ice.
Methane hydrate is stable in ocean floor sediments at water depths
greater than 300 meters, and where it occurs, it is known to
cement loose sediments in a surface layer several hundred meters
thick.

The worldwide amounts of carbon bound in gas hydrates is
conservatively estimated to total twice the amount of carbon to be
found in all known fossil fuels on Earth.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051107083255.htm

>nuclear (dangerous and waste problems), and so on.

Additionally, there is the issue of the limited life span of nuclear
generating facilities, generally about 25 years. After that the
entire facility must be sawed into blocks and moved to a storage site.
When the cost of clean up from inevitable radioactive discharges and
the resulting liability settlements, short life span, decommissioning
costs, and monitored storage of radioactive waste for centuries are
figured into the equations, nuclear energy isn't very cost effective,
not the mention it's potential long-term (tens of thousands of years)
impact on the environment.

>Hydrogen fuel cells, even if they worked well and were affordable,
>require hydrogen, which requires the electrolysis of water, which
>needs vast amounts of electricity.

While it may not be very efficient (currently), solar energy can
nevertheless provide adequate power to electrolyze water. And solar
generated electricity can be harnessed where it is needed while it
provides shade to reduce air conditioning costs. Here's what Honda is
testing:

http://world.honda.com/news/2005/c051114.html
Further advancing its vision of a gasoline- and emissions-free
transportation future, Honda R&D Americas, Inc., in conjunction
with technology partner Plug Power Inc., introduced the Home
Energy Station, which provides heat and electricity for the home
as well as fuel for a hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicle.

http://www.forbes.com/businesswire/feeds/businesswire/2008/03/27/businesswire20080327005373r1.html
Southern California Edison Launches Nation's Largest Solar Panel
Installation
03.27.08, 3:02 AM ET
Southern California Edison (SCE) today launched the nation's
largest solar cell installation, a project that will place 250
megawatts of advanced photovoltaic generating technology on 65
million square feet of roofs of Southern California commercial
buildings - enough power to serve approximately 162,000 homes.

"These are the kinds of big ideas we need to meet California's
long-term energy and climate change goals," said Governor
Schwarzenegger. "I urge others to follow in their footsteps. If
commercial buildings statewide partnered with utilities to put
this solar technology on their rooftops, it would set off a huge
wave of renewable energy growth."

"This project will turn two square miles of unused commercial
rooftops into advanced solar generating stations," said John E.
Bryson, Edison International chairman and CEO. "We hope to have
the first solar rooftops in service by August. The sunlight power
will be available to meet our largest challenge - peak load
demands on the hottest days."

SCE's renewable energy project was prompted by recent advances in
solar technology that reduce the cost of installed photovoltaic
gen...

The utility plans to begin installation work immediately on
commercial roofs in Southern California's Inland Empire, San
Bernardino and Riverside counties, the nation's fastest growing
urban region.

"These new solar stations, which we will be installing at a rate
of one megawatt a week, will provide a new source of clean energy,
directly in the fast-growing regions where we need it most," said
Bryson.

SCE sees numerous customer benefits from its new solar program,
among them locating the new generation in areas of growing
customer demand. And the clusters of solar modules SCE plans to
install will be connected directly to the nearest neighborhood
circuit, eliminating the need to build new transmission lines to
bring the power to customers. Additionally, solar units produce
the most power when customer usage is at its highest.

[email protected]

June 19th 08, 08:01 PM

On Jun 19, 12:15 pm, "Allen" > wrote:
> An engineer at the University of Florida has unveiled a design for a "flying
> saucer" that can take off vertically, hover, and fly, and it has no wings or
> propeller -- it doesn't have any moving parts at all. "This is a very novel
> concept, and if it's successful, it will be revolutionary," said Subrata
> Roy, the ship's inventor, who applied for a patent on it last week. "If
> successful, we will have an aircraft, a saucer and a helicopter all in one
> embodiment." The saucer is propelled by a force called magnetohydrodynamics,
> which is created when a current or a magnetic field is passed through a
> fluid. By interacting with the atmosphere, the force is able to create lift
> and momentum and provides stability against wind gusts. The ship's surface
> is partially hollow and continuously curved, like an electromagnetic flying
> bundt pan. Unfortunately, it seems the technique is likely to work better in
> space, where pesky things like gravity and drag are minimized.

The Japanese built a ship in the '80s using that propulsion
technology. No moving parts in the water; just a tunnel with some big
electrodes. I have heard no more about it; I thing the efficiency
losses are too big. Current flowing through seawater electrolyzes and
heats it, and there goes wasted energy. How does this guy get current
to flow through air?
Another lab built a small flying model using electrostatic
lift back in the 60s. It couldn't lift anything but itself and a few
feet of wire that led to the power source on the floor. It had pointed
electrodes on little posts mounted on but insulated from a screen
below; the posts were negatively charged and the screen positive, and
tiny amounts of current travelled via charged air particles from the
posts to the screen. The charges were not enough to cause sparks, like
lightning. The very light air movement generated lifted the device.
Again, far too inefficient to be useful.
When I was a kid magazines like Popular Mechanics and Popular
Science and Mechanix Illustrated had articles every month on
"Revolutionary" aircraft designs and wings and engines for cars and
airplanes and boats and so forth. They're still printing articles like
that. As kid I read all of this for years and when I grew up I still
saw the same old piston engines, four-wheeled cars, airplanes using
those old piston engines and the same old airfoils we've used for 75
years, and ships with propellers and either piston engines or steam
turbines. All old technology that refuses to go away. Even the modern
car is still using the same piston-connecting rod-crankshaft-camshaft-
valves arrangement that Henry Ford used, just with computer-controlled
spark and fuel controls that break down and cost a fortune to fix.
Nothing really revolutionary, 40 years after all those magazine
articles trumpeting the new stuff just around the corner. Kinda makes
a person more than a little skeptical when Le Chaud claims to have
better ideas, see? He has no idea how many of his ideas were already
invented before he was born.
I think there's more chance of antigravity technology being
developed. A lab has achieved a 4% reduction in gravitational force
above a rapidly spinning superconducting disk. Five or six yeras ago
already. Part of the problem is that no one really understands
gravity, and no one has been able to conclusively link it with
electromagnetism and the two nuclear forces, so until we figure it out
it'll be hard to create something that defeats it. And that's
annoying, seeing that even the weakest magnet can pick up something
against the feeble force of gravity.
The fuel pump in the tank of my car has now quit, and a new one
is $400 or so. The little car gets 42 mpg. The 1962 VW Beetle that was
my first car, got 45 mpg. The 1951 International pickup I restored,
and in which I put a Ford 300 six-banger, gets just under 25 mpg, much
better than most brand-new pickups are getting these days. It has a
$25 mechanical fuel pump and a carburetor with a manual choke. The
ignition uses points and a condenser, and when they get worn they'll
tell you that they're worn but they'll keep going until you get home
and won't stop dead in the middle of the freeway. Just what did all
this electronic stuff get us?

Dan

Le Chaud Lapin

June 19th 08, 08:19 PM

On Jun 19, 1:11*pm, wrote:
> * * * * * * Fly-by-wire makes sense in large airplanes or in agile
> fighters. The lifting capacity of transports or fighters is an order
> of magnitude higher than small airplanes because of much better power-
> to-weight ratios, much higher airspeeds, and much more wing area. The
> electronics to control those systems weigh every bit as much as the
> electronics to control the systems in a small airplane; the only
> difference is the size of the hydraulic actuators and pumps. In small
> aircraft, where the *ratio between stall speed and cruise speed might
> be 2:1, maybe 3:1 max, instead of the 4:1 or much more in FBW system
> aircraft, the extra weight makes no sense whatever. Just think of the
> hydraulic pumps and their actuators (or bigger alternators and primary
> servos). Lots and lots of weight. In a small two-place airplane that
> has no more than a 600 pound useful load, they are simply not
> welcome.
> * * * * The distance between the pilot and control surfaces also makes
> a difference, and the need for some sort of boost anyway in larger
> airplanes means that FBW becomes more of a minor change rather than
> the addition of a whole system.
> * * * * * * But someone will do it for light aircraft, and they'll try
> to sell it. It will be expensive (so it won't sell well), heavy (so
> the utility we be gone), and will remove the pilot from the feel of
> the air (and there's goes much of the fun). Kind of like putting anti-
> skid brakes and power steering and an automatic transmission on an
> Indy race car; it's just plain dumb. Might sell a few to people who
> don't really want to do the flying. Couch potato pilots.

I am beginning to think that much of the distaste for advanced
technology in GA has mostly to do with this last paragraph you wrote.

As someone who exceeds 100 mph at least once daily on average (for
various semi-legal reasons), I like my thrill to, but 'I' is not
'us'.

There seems to be a bit of hypocrisy in GA, at least with the pilots.

On the one hand, some complain that rate of increase in pilot
population is too low. On the other, things that would lead to more
pilots getting into the air are frowned upon (ultra-commoditized
components).

GA pilots are going to have to decide what is more important - the
seat-of-pants feeling that they get when yanking on their sticks, or
making flying accessible to a wider audience (which would decrease
overall cost of flying, etc.).

The FAA, NASA, and over government organizations, ironically, seem to
be pushing very hard for the latter, while pilots are holding out for
the former.

Maybe there is a middle ground, where pilots who prefer designs from
1970 can continue in those aircraft, while grandma and grandpa, who do
not care too much for carb icing, can opt for the latter.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Jim Logajan

June 19th 08, 09:13 PM

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Jun 19, 1:11*pm, wrote:
> [Some stuff]
....
> There seems to be a bit of hypocrisy in GA, at least with the pilots.

If you want to draw silly and offensive conclusions about an entire group
of people from a couple samples and ignore the results from all the other
samples, it is my humble opinion that you have problems both with reasoning
and social skills.

Ken S. Tucker

June 19th 08, 09:32 PM

On Jun 19, 10:15 am, "BDS" > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote
>
> > Yup, electronics/electrical is the wave of the future,
> > and that's from a guy who prefers crank windows to
> > them thar fancy power windows in cars!
> > From satellite technology, to your hard-drive motors,
> > to auto focusing cameras...we're in the digital servo-
> > -age. May dinosaurs R.I.P.
> > Ken
>
> It will be difficult to compete with mechanical actuation as far as
> reliability vs. cost in a product meant for the consumer market, and in a
> critical application such as movement of control surfaces.
>
> Satellite technology won't be cheap enough for GA, and I've had enough
> hard-drive, camera, and consumer electronics problems to know I don't want
> that level of reliability in an aircraft. If your camera refuses to focus
> properly, nobody dies.
>
> Our aircraft uses servos in the autopilot system. In the last 16 years
> we've had both the pitch and trim servos fail. Consider the consequences of
> that if the servos were the primary means of control.

I studied your post carefully, and I agree.
The system, works like,
......actuators......
a<--/\/\/---/\/\/--->b
.......1........2..........

True actuator #1 can fail, then actuator #2
still works, then actuator #1 is replaced.
Asking the question about the F-16, "fly-by-
wire" fighter, dated 1972, do we have failures
due to the electonics and servos?
Ken

[email protected]

June 19th 08, 09:41 PM

On Jun 19, 1:19 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On the one hand, some complain that rate of increase in pilot
> population is too low. On the other, things that would lead to more
> pilots getting into the air are frowned upon (ultra-commoditized
> components).

We see new designs every year. More fancy electronic autopilots
and nav stuff, more engine FADEC stuff, more safety stuff like
parachutes. But fewer people still fly, because all of that fancy
stuff is so expensive. Most end up flying 35 or 50 year old airplanes
because that's what they can afford.
Airliners have had fly-by-wire for some time now but they're no
cheaper than they were to fly when they were mechanical. In fact, it
takes an army of highly-paid avionics techs to keep them safe and
flyable. It's deregulation of the industry in the 1970s that brought
air travel within the reach of the common man, not electronics, and
the resulting tiny margin of profit for airlines in a highly
competitive environment has resulted in many bankruptcies since then.

Dan

[email protected]

June 19th 08, 09:44 PM

On Jun 19, 2:32 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> True actuator #1 can fail, then actuator #2
> still works, then actuator #1 is replaced.
> Asking the question about the F-16, "fly-by-
> wire" fighter, dated 1972, do we have failures
> due to the electonics and servos?
> Ken

Don't ask me. Ask the USAF about the failure rate and resultant
bailouts and aircraft losses when they quit. Ask them how many
maintenance hours are spent on each airplane for each hour of flight.
And then compare that with the maintenance the average privately-owned
lightplane gets.

Dan

[email protected]

June 19th 08, 10:01 PM

this Le Chaud kid doesn't even lie a good game. New prime mover, new
airform, loves to hear himself type.

On Jun 19, 4:44 pm, wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2:32 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > True actuator #1 can fail, then actuator #2
> > still works, then actuator #1 is replaced.
> > Asking the question about the F-16, "fly-by-
> > wire" fighter, dated 1972, do we have failures
> > due to the electonics and servos?
> > Ken
>
> Don't ask me. Ask the USAF about the failure rate and resultant
> bailouts and aircraft losses when they quit. Ask them how many
> maintenance hours are spent on each airplane for each hour of flight.
> And then compare that with the maintenance the average privately-owned
> lightplane gets.
>
> Dan

Larry Dighera

June 19th 08, 10:20 PM

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:15:54 -0500, "Allen" >
wrote in >:

>all. "This is a very novel
>concept, and if it's successful, it will be revolutionary," said Subrata
>Roy, the ship's inventor, who applied for a patent on it last week. "If
>successful, we will have an aircraft, a saucer and a helicopter all in one
>embodiment." The saucer is propelled by a force called magnetohydrodynamics,
>which is created when a current or a magnetic field is passed through a
>fluid. By interacting with the atmosphere, the for

Towering Obstacles? One wonders what the maximum magnitude of the
magnetohydrodynamic force created when the "plasma pushes around the
surrounding air" might be. :-)

http://news.ufl.edu/2008/06/11/flying-saucer/
Fittingly, Roy said his flying saucer one day could soar through
atmospheres other than Earth’s own. For example, the aircraft
would be an ideal vehicle for the exploration of Titan, Saturn’s
sixth moon, which has high air density and low gravity, Roy said.

The U.S. Air Force and NASA have expressed interest in the
aircraft, and the university is seeking to license the design, he
said.

“This is a very novel concept, and if it’s successful, it will be
revolutionary,” Roy said.

The vehicle will be powered by a phenomenon called
magnetohydrodynamics, or the force created when a current or a
magnetic field is passed through a conducting fluid. In the case
of Roy’s aircraft, the conducting fluid will be created by
electrodes that cover each of the vehicle’s surfaces and ionize
the surrounding air into plasma.

The force created by passing an electrical current through this
plasma pushes around the surrounding air, and that swirling air
creates lift and momentum and provides stability against wind
gusts. In order to maximize the area of contact between air and
vehicle, Roy’s design is partially hollow and continuously curved,
like an electromagnetic flying bundt pan.

One of the most revolutionary aspects of Roy’s use of
magnetohydrodynamics is that the vehicle will have no moving
parts. The lack of traditional mechanical aircraft parts, such as
propellers or jet engines, should provide tremendous reliability,
Roy said. Such a design also will allow the WEAV to hover and take
off vertically.

Though the design is promising on paper, towering obstacles stand
between the blueprint and liftoff.

No plasma-propelled aircraft has successfully taken flight on
Earth. Such designs have found some success in space, where
gravity and drag are minimal, but a vehicle hoping to fly within
Earth’s atmosphere will need at least an order of magnitude more
thrust, Roy said.

Also, the power source needs to be extremely lightweight yet still
produce enough power to generate the necessary plasma. Not to
mention the fact that the very same plasma that will allow the
aircraft to fly also will interfere with electromagnetic waves
necessary for communication with the vehicle.

But Roy is confident that the unique nature of his design will
allow it to clear the technological hurdles and take to the skies,
and he’s not deterred by the risk of failure.

“Of course the risk is huge, but so is the payoff,” he said. “If
successful, we will have an aircraft, a saucer and a helicopter
all in one embodiment.”

The propulsion system for Roy’s saucer sprouts from his extensive
U.S. Air Force-funded plasma actuator research, the results of
which have appeared in more than 15 scholarly journals.

The production of the aircraft will be a joint project of UF’s
mechanical and aerospace engineering department and its electrical
and computer engineering department.

Allen[_1_]

June 19th 08, 10:35 PM

> wrote in message
...
> On Jun 19, 12:15 pm, "Allen" > wrote:
>> An engineer at the University of Florida has unveiled a design for a
>> "flying
>> saucer" that can take off vertically, hover, and fly, and it has no wings
>> or
>> propeller -- it doesn't have any moving parts at all. "This is a very
>> novel
>> concept, and if it's successful, it will be revolutionary," said Subrata
>> Roy, the ship's inventor, who applied for a patent on it last week. "If
>> successful, we will have an aircraft, a saucer and a helicopter all in
>> one
>> embodiment." The saucer is propelled by a force called
>> magnetohydrodynamics,
>> which is created when a current or a magnetic field is passed through a
>> fluid. By interacting with the atmosphere, the force is able to create
>> lift
>> and momentum and provides stability against wind gusts. The ship's
>> surface
>> is partially hollow and continuously curved, like an electromagnetic
>> flying
>> bundt pan. Unfortunately, it seems the technique is likely to work better
>> in
>> space, where pesky things like gravity and drag are minimized.
>
> The Japanese built a ship in the '80s using that propulsion
> technology. No moving parts in the water; just a tunnel with some big
> electrodes. I have heard no more about it; I thing the efficiency
> losses are too big. Current flowing through seawater electrolyzes and
> heats it, and there goes wasted energy. How does this guy get current
> to flow through air?
> Another lab built a small flying model using electrostatic
> lift back in the 60s. It couldn't lift anything but itself and a few
> feet of wire that led to the power source on the floor. It had pointed
> electrodes on little posts mounted on but insulated from a screen
> below; the posts were negatively charged and the screen positive, and
> tiny amounts of current travelled via charged air particles from the
> posts to the screen. The charges were not enough to cause sparks, like
> lightning. The very light air movement generated lifted the device.
> Again, far too inefficient to be useful.
> When I was a kid magazines like Popular Mechanics and Popular
> Science and Mechanix Illustrated had articles every month on
> "Revolutionary" aircraft designs and wings and engines for cars and
> airplanes and boats and so forth. They're still printing articles like
> that. As kid I read all of this for years and when I grew up I still
> saw the same old piston engines, four-wheeled cars, airplanes using
> those old piston engines and the same old airfoils we've used for 75
> years, and ships with propellers and either piston engines or steam
> turbines. All old technology that refuses to go away. Even the modern
> car is still using the same piston-connecting rod-crankshaft-camshaft-
> valves arrangement that Henry Ford used, just with computer-controlled
> spark and fuel controls that break down and cost a fortune to fix.
> Nothing really revolutionary, 40 years after all those magazine
> articles trumpeting the new stuff just around the corner. Kinda makes
> a person more than a little skeptical when Le Chaud claims to have
> better ideas, see? He has no idea how many of his ideas were already
> invented before he was born.
> I think there's more chance of antigravity technology being
> developed. A lab has achieved a 4% reduction in gravitational force
> above a rapidly spinning superconducting disk. Five or six yeras ago
> already. Part of the problem is that no one really understands
> gravity, and no one has been able to conclusively link it with
> electromagnetism and the two nuclear forces, so until we figure it out
> it'll be hard to create something that defeats it. And that's
> annoying, seeing that even the weakest magnet can pick up something
> against the feeble force of gravity.
> The fuel pump in the tank of my car has now quit, and a new one
> is $400 or so. The little car gets 42 mpg. The 1962 VW Beetle that was
> my first car, got 45 mpg. The 1951 International pickup I restored,
> and in which I put a Ford 300 six-banger, gets just under 25 mpg, much
> better than most brand-new pickups are getting these days. It has a
> $25 mechanical fuel pump and a carburetor with a manual choke. The
> ignition uses points and a condenser, and when they get worn they'll
> tell you that they're worn but they'll keep going until you get home
> and won't stop dead in the middle of the freeway. Just what did all
> this electronic stuff get us?
>
> Dan

Remove and replace mechanics that can't troubleshoot unless the car is
hooked up to a diagnostic machine (oops, that's another $80 charge).

--

*H. Allen Smith*
WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.

Le Chaud Lapin

June 19th 08, 11:30 PM

On Jun 19, 4:35*pm, "Allen" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> > * * * The fuel pump in the tank of my car has now quit, and a new one
> > is $400 or so. The little car gets 42 mpg. The 1962 VW Beetle that was
> > my first car, got 45 mpg. The 1951 International pickup I restored,
> > and in which I put a Ford 300 six-banger, gets just under 25 mpg, much
> > better than most brand-new pickups are getting these days. It has a
> > $25 mechanical fuel pump and a carburetor with a manual choke. The
> > ignition uses points and a condenser, and when they get worn they'll
> > tell you that they're worn but they'll keep going until you get home
> > and won't stop dead in the middle of the freeway. Just what did all
> > this electronic stuff get us?
>
> > * * * *Dan
>
> Remove and replace mechanics that can't troubleshoot unless the car is
> hooked up to a diagnostic machine (oops, that's another $80 charge).

Part of that is good-ole-fashion predation, and part of that is
reselling pig intestines and pasta for $100/serving.

It is known by the manufacturer of the device that the mechanic will
pass on exhorbitant costs of using the device to the consumer, so the
manufacturer inflates the price also. This behavior continues up the
food chain.

Ideally, the diagnostic machine could be nothing more than a PDA or
notebook compuer with a USB port. Then, all the excuses about why the
diagnoses or the machine itself are so expensive would be invalid.

That's what so wonderful about computers - untruths about "necessary
costs" and "unavoidable overhead" are quickly revealed to be such.

A CDROM drive is one of the most complex machines ever built if one
considers all what one needs to know to build it from basic
components, but it can easily be had for $25US.

That's the power of true commoditization.

Of course, if the vendor determines that you intend to mount the drive
in your Gulfstream, then adding a couple of 0's to the price would be
in order.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[email protected]

June 20th 08, 02:02 AM

On Jun 19, 4:30 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> A CDROM drive is one of the most complex machines ever built if one
> considers all what one needs to know to build it from basic
> components, but it can easily be had for $25US.
>
> That's the power of true commoditization.
>
> Of course, if the vendor determines that you intend to mount the drive
> in your Gulfstream, then adding a couple of 0's to the price would be
> in order.

Those extra zeros reflect the cost of certification and the cost
of liability insurance to protect the maker when the drive quits and
the pilot loses control in IMC and crashes and the widows of his
highly-paid passengers sue everyone that ever had anything to do with
that airplane. Tell me how commoditization is going to fix that.
Common, "commoditized" hardware can't be used on aircraft, for
two reasons: There's way too much counterfeit junk on the market, and
the cost of ordinary hardware is almost as bad as the cost of aircraft
hardware. In the former instance, we are now sold SAE/AISI Grade 5
nuts and bolts in the hardware stores that could come from the US or
from China. It all has the same head markings, but the counterfeit
stuff won't make the grade and if one uses such stuff in an airplane
it will come apart under stress. Grade 5 bolts are supposed to have a
tensile strength of 125ksi but the cheap stuff might have half that
and would shear or snap during high loads, or it might be brittle and
have no margin between yield and ultimate. It might have no
anticorrosion properties at all, and so it fails after pitting
somewhat. That's the reason the Government aviation regulators demand
that certified aircraft use only the parts listed in the
manufacturer's parts manual, and the manufacturer will specify AN or
NAS or MS hardware becauase it is made to a hard specification and is
traceable all the way back to the manufacturer, who also has records
as to where the metal came from and what its composition was and what
heat treatment it received. This takes paperwork which costs money,
but it minimizes the occasional unfortunate incidents where unapproved
parts get into an airplane and it comes apart in flight like that
Convair 580 did over Finland a few years ago when the fin came off
because some crook sold the overhaul facility a counterfeit fitting
that failed under load. The paperwork system was ignored somehow. The
people who had those 40 relatives die in that accident would never
agree with "commoditization" that could lead to an enormous increase
in inflight structural failures.
And as far as the cost of that hardware, the universal AN/MS/NAS
hardware is not at all expensive since there are numerous companies
making it. When my son was into building RC model airplanes I got him
small AN hardware for less money than for the cheap junk that the
hobby shops sell. A few bolts (like the landing gear bolts on the
Citabria) cost around $35 for a 1/2" x 3" or so NAS bolt, but that
bolt has a tensile strength of about 190ksi, something no industrial
hardware reaches. Even at that those bolts get changed out every 500
hours and can be reused after NDI. A lesser bolt would fail,
guaranteed, and someone would get hurt. Besides, aircraft hardware is
made of nickel steel and other fancy alloys, not the plain carbon
steel used in common hardware. Huge difference, and when I, a
mechanic, am out flying and think about some of that critical hardware
that's hold me up, I'm glad we paid more for it than we could have by
using common stuff.
Numerous homebuilders have designed airplanes intended to cost
much less by using non-aviation parts, but they ALWAYS end up heavy
and more than a little questionable.
And as far as automating flight goes, flying will always
require both skill and awareness unless we turn the whole thing over
to computers like we did the telephone system. And I sure wouldn't
want to trust such a system, especially with opportunistic terrorists
around.

Dan

Ken S. Tucker

June 20th 08, 04:38 AM

On Jun 19, 1:44 pm, wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2:32 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > True actuator #1 can fail, then actuator #2
> > still works, then actuator #1 is replaced.
> > Asking the question about the F-16, "fly-by-
> > wire" fighter, dated 1972, do we have failures
> > due to the electonics and servos?
> > Ken
>
> Don't ask me. Ask the USAF about the failure rate and resultant
> bailouts and aircraft losses when they quit. Ask them how many
> maintenance hours are spent on each airplane for each hour of flight.
> And then compare that with the maintenance the average privately-owned
> lightplane gets.
> Dan

I'm a brat who did "points" on old ICE's, adjusted
carbs...then along comes electronic ignition and
fuel injection and my car starts easily at -20F.
So these advances are definitely reducing my
maintenance. Wife just bought a Gran Caravan
that's scary with electronics, (she loves it), but
I'm keeping a real close eye on all them gizmo's,
so far...excellent...after nearly 2 years.
Ken

Gig 601Xl Builder

June 20th 08, 05:30 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> Additionally, there is the issue of the limited life span of nuclear
> generating facilities, generally about 25 years.

Larry, where the hell do you come up with this stuff?

Please take a look at this page.
http://www.entergy-nuclear.com/plant_information/ano.aspx

Unit 1 went into service in 1974 and is licensed until 2034.
Unit 2 went into service in 1980 and is licensed until 2038.

Larry Dighera

June 20th 08, 10:08 PM

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:30:11 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>
>> Additionally, there is the issue of the limited life span of nuclear
>> generating facilities, generally about 25 years.
>
>Larry, where the hell do you come up with this stuff?
>

I presume you have no quarrel with my contention that nuclear
generating facilities have a limited life span.

The 25 year figure was related to me by a worker at the San Onofre, CA
nuclear plant whom I chanced to meet on a ski lift some years ago. I
recall, that I was surprised to learn that nuclear plants were life
limited. So I was aware that the first nuclear reactor installed at
San Onofre, CA was shutdown after ~25 years, and presumed that was the
expected life span for all of them.

http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/PowerGeneration/SanOnofreNuclearGeneratingStation/SONGSFactSheet.htm
Unit 1 was retired in 1992 after 25 years of service and is
currently being decommissioned.

Now I see that San Onofre Plant 1 was actually shutdown prematurely:

http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/nukelist1.htm
Unit 1 was closed prematurely due to the costs of required seismic
retrofitting.

Indeed the other two reactors on the San Onofre site have longer life
spans:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/sanonofre.html
U.S. Nuclear Plants
On-line Date License Expiration Date

Unit 2 Sept. 7, 1982 Feb. 16, 2022

Unit 3: Sept. 16, 1983 Nov. 15, 2022

Which works out to about a 40 year useful life span, and the useful
live of the plant at Diablo Canyon is similar:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/diablo.html

So, I thank you for calling my error to my attention. I'll try to
research my facts before stating them in the future.

Below is some information I found interesting as I researched this San
Onofre issue:

http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/PowerGeneration/SanOnofreNuclearGeneratingStation/Decommissioning.htm
Q. What is Decommissioning?
A. Decommissioning consists of decontamination, dismantling,
shipment and final disposition of nuclear power plant components,
and site rehabilitation.

Decommissioning is a condition of the plant's operating license
from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Q. When will decommissioning occur?
A. Decommissioning began in 1999 and the majority of the plant's
structures and facilities are expected to be decontaminated,
dismantled and removed from the site by 2008.

Q. How much will it cost to decommission Unit 1? How will it be
paid for?
A. The cost is estimated at $460 million. Sufficient money is
expected to be available to accomplish decommissioning now through
a trust fund financed through rates that was established when the
plant began operating.

Q. How many US nuclear plants have been decommissioned?
A. Four utility-size nuclear power plants have undergone complete
decommissioning, including Shippingport, Pennsylvania (72 MW),
completed 1989; Pathfinder, South Dakota (66MW), completed in
1992; Shoreham, New York (849 MW), completed in 1994; and Fort St.
Vrain, Colorado (330 MW); completed in 1996.

Q. How long did SONGS 1 operate and how much electricity did it
generate?
A. The unit operated from Jan. 1, 1968 to Nov. 30, 1992. ...

It produced about 53.35 billion kilowatt-hours (enough to energize
1 million households for 9 years). Its generating capacity was 450
megawatts (enough to energize about 500,000 homes at a time). For
comparison, SONGS 2 and 3 generate 1,100 megawatts each.

http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/PowerGeneration/SanOnofreNuclearGeneratingStation/EmissionandWasteDisposal.htm
Waste Disposal

Two distinct types of waste which require special handling and
disposal are produced at San Onofre, low-level and high-level
radioactive waste.

Low-level wastes typically contain small amounts of radioactivity
similar to those produced by medical procedures. Examples of such
waste materials include items such as towels, gloves and tools
used by workers, and water purification filtering materials.

High-level waste is the solid spent, or used, uranium fuel rods.
Disposal of used fuel requires long term, high-reliability
isolation from the environment.

>Please take a look at this page.
>http://www.entergy-nuclear.com/plant_information/ano.aspx
>
>Unit 1 went into service in 1974 and is licensed until 2034.
>Unit 2 went into service in 1980 and is licensed until 2038.

Indeed:
Arkansas Nuclear One
Unit 1 Unit 2
Commercial Operation Date: December 1974 March 1980
License Expiration Date: 5/20/34 7/18/38

I'm pleased that you find no fault in the other points I raised
concerning nuclear power generation's radioactive waste.

Unfortunately, there are other objectionable environmental issues with
coastally sited generating facilities:

http://www.fox6.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=fda06093-99ca-4c5e-9cf8-415c783dc82a
Artificial Reef is Built After San Onofre Nuclear Plant Damages
Kelp Beds

Last Update: 6/12 7:18 am

A $40 million, 150-acre artificial reef being built off San
Clemente is one of the most advanced anywhere, thanks to Southern
California Edison, which is bankrolling the work to replace kelp
beds damaged by the San Onofre nuclear plant, it was reported
Friday.

Crews have begun carefully dumping boulders into about 50 feet of
water to anchor what marine biologists hope will grow into a kelp
forest, which would shelter fish and other creatures just south of
the oceanfront nuclear-powered electricity generating station, the
Los Angeles Times reported. ...

Cloudy cooling water discharged from the plant, according to a
1989 study, drifts south and blocks the sunlight needed by a kelp
forest, of which about 180 acres have been damaged, The Times
reported.

Edison agreed to build the reef as part of a deal with the
California Coastal Commission. ...

The reef, more than a half-mile offshore, will be patches of rocks
that fit together like a puzzle and stretch about 2.5 miles,
roughly from San Clemente Pier to San Mateo Point, Craig Eaker of
Edison told The Times. ...

The power plant, which needs massive amounts of water to cool the
reactor, sucks in and kills about 600 tons of fish annually, even
though Edison has tried to remedy the problem.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/15/local/me-onofre15
The NRC “always claims there isn’t a high safety risk,” said Edwin
Lyman, a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned
Scientists. “But these fabrications went unnoticed by supervisors
and managers for 5 1/2 years. This says something about the
inadequacy of the NRC’s inspection process.”

Commission officials that a fire protection specialist on the
midnight shift from April 2001 to December 2006 falsified records
about hourly patrols around the plant to check for fires. ...

“A major fire at a nuclear reactor could release a thousand times
the long-lived radiation of the Hiroshima bomb,” Hirsch said.
“Fire protection data is the last thing one should tolerate being
fabricated at a nuclear power plant.” ...

Hirsch noted that the current violations were the latest of a
number of problems at San Onofre. Earlier this month, NRC
inspectors discovered the failure of an emergency generator during
three tests in late December. The diesel generator is one of two
that provide electricity to safety systems in the event of a power
outage.

Edison officials said the generator failed because of a faulty
speed sensor, which was replaced.

Dricks said the agency began investigating the fire patrol
fabrications in January 2007. NRC has uncovered the four other
violations. ...

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/16/local/me-onofre16
January 16, 2008

Seven workers at the San Onofre nuclear power plant near San
Clemente have been disciplined or fired in connection with a rash
of safety and security problems uncovered by federal regulators
last year, Southern California Edison officials said Tuesday. ...

“Where the acts were deliberate misconduct, employees were
discharged and contract workers were no longer permitted on the
property,” said Gil Alexander, an Edison spokesman. “Where the
conduct was determined to be less egregious, alternative
disciplinary actions were taken.” ...

The other violations involved a radiation worker who failed to
comply with a work permit; a failure by supervisors to oversee an
unqualified technician whose work led to the temporary shutdown of
a safety system; and two lapses in plant security. ...

http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/nukelist1.htm
Nuclear power plants and other large nuclear facilities in the
United States Operating or closed.

Including their individual histories, locations, technical
details, official contact points, and local activist groups.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 22nd 08, 02:12 AM

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Jun 12, 9:53 pm, Ron > wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:43:07 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Jun 12, 5:08 am, Tina > wrote:
>> >> > Yes, the time my son spent with canard aircraft brought out all
>> >> > sorts of interesting information about canards and the history
>> >> > of trying to scale up Rutan's original concept Beech Starship.
>> >> > The smaller true canards like the Long-eze are pretty good
>> >> > aircraft. However there is a reason why we don't see large (six
>> >> > plus passenger) true canards. It's the relationship between CG,
>> >> > fuel load, payload and range. Apparently in the scale up process
>> >> > there is a point where it is no longer practical.
>> >> > Ron Kelley
>>
>> >Hmm, how the XB-70 or this,
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Sonic_Cruiser
>>
>> True, the XB-70 was a qualified success of a large canard type
>> aircraft. Most of it's problems were due to system failures and
>> trying to fly at Mach 3.0. The only control issues I know of were
>> related to overly sensitive pitch response to control inputs.
>> Ref:http://www.labiker.org/xb70.html
>
> Thanks for that link.
>
>> As far as I know the Boeing Sonic Cruiser hasn't gone beyond the
>> artists concept stage. I guess it's no accident that all the current
>> crop of passenger jets look alike. That could be partially due to
>> the reluctance of any large airframe manufacturer to take a gamble on
>> trying to certify any new "radical" design. Who knows.
>>
>> Personally, I am intrigued by the three surface aircraft like the
>> Piaggio. They seem to have done pretty good with their design. One
>> wonders if given enough time, money and talent, there is some room
>> for improvement there.
>
> Yes! That Piaggio is one real impressive piece of
> aerodynamics, and it sounds very pilot user-friendly.
> Very remarkable how they utilized the canard.
>
>> >I think the aircraft business is extremely conservative.
>> >KISS applies, also canards are difficult for the average
>> >pilot to understand, (Hey man, you got that thar tail on
>> >the wrong end :-).
>>
>> >> Would it not also be true that passive stability is not as
>> >> important in larger modern airplanes? I would guess (again, I
>> >> admit being ignorant of the realities) that adding a 10%
>> >> aerodynamically induced increased load on bigger aircraft would be
>> >> avoided for efficiency reasons? It might be better to have enough
>> >> fly by wire and computer induced stability instead. I don't know
>> >> enough about this stuff to even find the back of an envelope, let
>> >> alone do a calculation there.
>>
>> >Canards are NOT simple, I've designed quite a few,
>> >and studied others, especially Rutan's.
>> >I find they can be optimised for a given air speed
>> >and are much better than the conventional lay-out.
>> >The main problem is designing the stall.
>> >Ken
>>
>> Anyone who can design a successful canard aircraft has my respect. I
>> didn't learn a whole lot about the design aspects from my son (he was
>> in flight test, not design), but what we did learn was everything
>> interacted with everything else. The job was interesting, but didn't
>> last long.
>
> Your son sounds like a cool dude.
> The major PITA is designing aircraft to be efficient
> at cruise, but safe all the way to stalling, and
> recoverable. The difficulty is the movement of the
> Center of Lift forward on the main wing as stall
> begins.

Uh, no it isn't, fjukktard.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 22nd 08, 02:17 AM

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Jun 13, 9:23 pm, Ron > wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:02:35 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Jun 12, 9:53 pm, Ron > wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:43:07 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >On Jun 12, 5:08 am, Tina > wrote:
>> >> >> > Yes, the time my son spent with canard aircraft brought out
>> >> >> > all sorts of interesting information about canards and the
>> >> >> > history of trying to scale up Rutan's original concept Beech
>> >> >> > Starship. The smaller true canards like the Long-eze are
>> >> >> > pretty good aircraft. However there is a reason why we don't
>> >> >> > see large (six plus passenger) true canards. It's the
>> >> >> > relationship between CG, fuel load, payload and range.
>> >> >> > Apparently in the scale up process there is a point where it
>> >> >> > is no longer practical.
>> >> >> > Ron Kelley
>>
>> >> >Hmm, how the XB-70 or this,
>> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Sonic_Cruiser
>>
>> >> True, the XB-70 was a qualified success of a large canard type
>> >> aircraft. Most of it's problems were due to system failures and
>> >> trying to fly at Mach 3.0. The only control issues I know of were
>> >> related to overly sensitive pitch response to control inputs.
>> >> Ref:http://www.labiker.org/xb70.html
>>
>> >Thanks for that link.
>>
>> >> As far as I know the Boeing Sonic Cruiser hasn't gone beyond the
>> >> artists concept stage. I guess it's no accident that all the
>> >> current crop of passenger jets look alike. That could be
>> >> partially due to the reluctance of any large airframe manufacturer
>> >> to take a gamble on trying to certify any new "radical" design.
>> >> Who knows.
>>
>> >> Personally, I am intrigued by the three surface aircraft like the
>> >> Piaggio. They seem to have done pretty good with their design.
>> >> One wonders if given enough time, money and talent, there is some
>> >> room for improvement there.
>>
>> >Yes! That Piaggio is one real impressive piece of
>> >aerodynamics, and it sounds very pilot user-friendly.
>> >Very remarkable how they utilized the canard.
>>
>> >> >I think the aircraft business is extremely conservative.
>> >> >KISS applies, also canards are difficult for the average
>> >> >pilot to understand, (Hey man, you got that thar tail on
>> >> >the wrong end :-).
>>
>> >> >> Would it not also be true that passive stability is not as
>> >> >> important in larger modern airplanes? I would guess (again, I
>> >> >> admit being ignorant of the realities) that adding a 10%
>> >> >> aerodynamically induced increased load on bigger aircraft would
>> >> >> be avoided for efficiency reasons? It might be better to have
>> >> >> enough fly by wire and computer induced stability instead. I
>> >> >> don't know enough about this stuff to even find the back of an
>> >> >> envelope, let alone do a calculation there.
>>
>> >> >Canards are NOT simple, I've designed quite a few,
>> >> >and studied others, especially Rutan's.
>> >> >I find they can be optimised for a given air speed
>> >> >and are much better than the conventional lay-out.
>> >> >The main problem is designing the stall.
>> >> >Ken
>>
>> >> Anyone who can design a successful canard aircraft has my respect.
>> >> I didn't learn a whole lot about the design aspects from my son
>> >> (he was in flight test, not design), but what we did learn was
>> >> everything interacted with everything else. The job was
>> >> interesting, but didn't last long.
>>
>> >Your son sounds like a cool dude.
>>
>> Yeah, I kinda like him. ;-)
>>
>> >The major PITA is designing aircraft to be efficient
>> >at cruise, but safe all the way to stalling, and
>> >recoverable. The difficulty is the movement of the
>> >Center of Lift forward on the main wing as stall
>> >begins.
>>
>> I seem to remember a problem they had with the fuel load and the
>> center of lift moving close to (ahead/behind?) the CG. They also had
>> a problem with getting enough fuel on board (this was a single engine
>> turboprop) and where to put it to get the range they wanted.
>
> I guess one way to figure that out is to place weigh
> scales under the tires and then fill in increments,
> to give the exact CG in horizontal pitch, that can
> be readily calculated by the ratios. Fuel movement
> for various pitchs would affect the CG.
> While on the subject of trim, any excessive trim
> required *should* indicate a possible excursion
> from the appropriate CG - CL relation.

Wow, you're obvioudsly san injunear.

I've misjudged you bigtime.
>
>> Ron Kelley
>
> Regards
> Ken
> PS: I turned on a TV show "ECW" (no volume),
> this is Friday PM here...near midnight, and two
> busty chicks (a blonde and redhead) dressed up
> in vinyl are beating each other up. It looks rough!
>

A scholar, of this there cna be no doubt.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

June 22nd 08, 02:19 AM

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Jun 14, 3:26 pm, Ron > wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:33:00 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Jun 13, 9:23 pm, Ron > wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:02:35 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >On Jun 12, 9:53 pm, Ron > wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:43:07 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >On Jun 12, 5:08 am, Tina > wrote:
>> >> >> >> > Yes, the time my son spent with canard aircraft brought
>> >> >> >> > out all sorts of interesting information about canards and
>> >> >> >> > the history of trying to scale up Rutan's original concept
>> >> >> >> > Beech Starship. The smaller true canards like the
>> >> >> >> > Long-eze are pretty good aircraft. However there is
>> >> >> >> > a reason why we don't see large (six plus passenger) true
>> >> >> >> > canards. It's the relationship between CG, fuel load,
>> >> >> >> > payload and range. Apparently in the scale up process
>> >> >> >> > there is a point where it is no longer practical.
>> >> >> >> > Ron Kelley
>>
>> >> >> >Hmm, how the XB-70 or this,
>> >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Sonic_Cruiser
>>
>> >> >> True, the XB-70 was a qualified success of a large canard type
>> >> >> aircraft. Most of it's problems were due to system failures
>> >> >> and trying to fly at Mach 3.0. The only control issues I know
>> >> >> of were related to overly sensitive pitch response to control
>> >> >> inputs. Ref:http://www.labiker.org/xb70.html
>>
>> >> >Thanks for that link.
>>
>> >> >> As far as I know the Boeing Sonic Cruiser hasn't gone beyond
>> >> >> the artists concept stage. I guess it's no accident that all
>> >> >> the current crop of passenger jets look alike. That could be
>> >> >> partially due to the reluctance of any large airframe
>> >> >> manufacturer to take a gamble on trying to certify any new
>> >> >> "radical" design. Who knows.
>>
>> >> >> Personally, I am intrigued by the three surface aircraft like
>> >> >> the Piaggio. They seem to have done pretty good with their
>> >> >> design. One wonders if given enough time, money and talent,
>> >> >> there is some room for improvement there.
>>
>> >> >Yes! That Piaggio is one real impressive piece of
>> >> >aerodynamics, and it sounds very pilot user-friendly.
>> >> >Very remarkable how they utilized the canard.
>>
>> >> >> >I think the aircraft business is extremely conservative.
>> >> >> >KISS applies, also canards are difficult for the average
>> >> >> >pilot to understand, (Hey man, you got that thar tail on
>> >> >> >the wrong end :-).
>>
>> >> >> >> Would it not also be true that passive stability is not as
>> >> >> >> important in larger modern airplanes? I would guess (again,
>> >> >> >> I admit being ignorant of the realities) that adding a 10%
>> >> >> >> aerodynamically induced increased load on bigger aircraft
>> >> >> >> would be avoided for efficiency reasons? It might be better
>> >> >> >> to have enough fly by wire and computer induced stability
>> >> >> >> instead. I don't know enough about this stuff to
>> >> >> >> even find the back of an envelope, let alone do a
>> >> >> >> calculation there.
>>
>> >> >> >Canards are NOT simple, I've designed quite a few,
>> >> >> >and studied others, especially Rutan's.
>> >> >> >I find they can be optimised for a given air speed
>> >> >> >and are much better than the conventional lay-out.
>> >> >> >The main problem is designing the stall.
>> >> >> >Ken
>>
>> >> >> Anyone who can design a successful canard aircraft has my
>> >> >> respect. I didn't learn a whole lot about the design aspects
>> >> >> from my son (he was in flight test, not design), but what we
>> >> >> did learn was everything interacted with everything else. The
>> >> >> job was interesting, but didn't last long.
>>
>> >> >Your son sounds like a cool dude.
>>
>> >> Yeah, I kinda like him. ;-)
>>
>> >> >The major PITA is designing aircraft to be efficient
>> >> >at cruise, but safe all the way to stalling, and
>> >> >recoverable. The difficulty is the movement of the
>> >> >Center of Lift forward on the main wing as stall
>> >> >begins.
>>
>> >> I seem to remember a problem they had with the fuel load and the
>> >> center of lift moving close to (ahead/behind?) the CG. They also
>> >> had a problem with getting enough fuel on board (this was a single
>> >> engine turboprop) and where to put it to get the range they
>> >> wanted.
>>
>> >I guess one way to figure that out is to place weigh
>> >scales under the tires and then fill in increments,
>> >to give the exact CG in horizontal pitch, that can
>> >be readily calculated by the ratios. Fuel movement
>> >for various pitchs would affect the CG.
>> >While on the subject of trim, any excessive trim
>> >required *should* indicate a possible excursion
>> >from the appropriate CG - CL relation.
>>
>> Alas, we'll never know if they could have solved their problems. The
>> company went out of business. They made some smart moves and some
>> not-so-smart moves (based on investor funding and lack of funding)
>> and finally closed the doors.
>>
>> >Regards
>> >Ken
>> >PS: I turned on a TV show "ECW" (no volume),
>> >this is Friday PM here...near midnight, and two
>> >busty chicks (a blonde and redhead) dressed up
>> >in vinyl are beating each other up. It looks rough!
>>
>> Back on the "old days" we used to watch Roller Derby on TV. Man, you
>> wouldn't want to mess with those ladies if you didn't want your head
>> handed to you on a platter.
>
> Wow, you're dating yourself. (I'm a 1953 boomer).
> Yeah Roller Derby, Sat or Sun afternoon on TV,

Obviously where you learned both your physics and psychology.

Bertie