![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
A prototype automated flap system was mentioned in the recent Duckhawk
discussion. My question: Given that our manual flap settings cannot be optimal, how much real-world improvement in climb and cruise could be gained with an automated flap system that always has the flaps at their optimal position ( a hypothetical "perfect" flap setter)? --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I think the idea is to use auto flap for dynamic soaring. The work load of
flying in a sine wave pattern, and high g forces, is already going to be intense. Adding the work load of continually changing flap settings manually might just be too hard to do. Cookie At 15:23 11 November 2013, Wallace Berry wrote: A prototype automated flap system was mentioned in the recent Duckhawk discussion. My question: Given that our manual flap settings cannot be optimal, how much real-world improvement in climb and cruise could be gained with an automated flap system that always has the flaps at their optimal position ( a hypothetical "perfect" flap setter)? --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Bob Cook wrote: I think the idea is to use auto flap for dynamic soaring. The work load of flying in a sine wave pattern, and high g forces, is already going to be intense. Adding the work load of continually changing flap settings manually might just be too hard to do. Cookie Yes, much too hard. Even in regular soaring flight it would be too much if one were to try to manually keep the flaps in the exact best position for all speeds and angles of attack. The flaps would never stop moving. My 301 Libelle got no stinkin' modern airfoil. It gots lots of little detents for the flap handle, but I think only a few matter. Whatever, I just like a day when I can push all the little levers forward... --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Monday, November 11, 2013 10:23:46 AM UTC-5, WB wrote:
A prototype automated flap system was mentioned in the recent Duckhawk discussion. My question: Given that our manual flap settings cannot be optimal, how much real-world improvement in climb and cruise could be gained with an automated flap system that always has the flaps at their optimal position ( a hypothetical "perfect" flap setter)? --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- Most current flapped gliders are fairly tolerant of errors in flap setting. The challange with automating flap settings, other than the relatively simple glide portion of the flight, is that the flap change quite likely needs to lead the change in lift coefficient. It also would need to have some serious filtering to take out gust effects. Add to this a need to not overdo changes to avoid running the power source down. Sounds like a very complex project with a marginal benefit, especially when applied to gliders with tolerant airfoils. Then again, thinking back to my PIK-20, it would have been useful. I wore myself out keeping the flaps in the optimum position for the required lift coefficient. Thank goodness for modern airfoils. Musing UH |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Didn't Will Scheumann do this in the 70s? I remember a soaring cover photo with a weird sort of mortocycle grip on the stick. As I remember, the basic idea was that the pilot pretty much flew by flaps, changing flap setting to induce changes in CL, with the tail functioning as trimmer.
Now if the windward guys really want to get fancy... you can in principle extract a lot of energy from the air by dynamic soaring the small bits of positive and negative g we run in to all the time. Humans are too slow, and we don't have the feedback we need, which is knowing when the lift vector has a component in the direction of motion to pull, and a component in the opposite direction when you push. This could be automated, lots of little fast pitch motions. Purists laugh, but if you get 60:1 glides out of 15 meter with high speed automated pitch motions, they'll laugh all the way to the back of the scoresheet. Or, I guess, to the annual rules poll to get it banned... John Cochrane |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Monday, November 11, 2013 12:36:33 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Didn't Will Scheumann do this in the 70s? I remember a soaring cover photo with a weird sort of mortocycle grip on the stick. As I remember, the basic idea was that the pilot pretty much flew by flaps, changing flap setting to induce changes in CL, with the tail functioning as trimmer. Now if the windward guys really want to get fancy... you can in principle extract a lot of energy from the air by dynamic soaring the small bits of positive and negative g we run in to all the time. Humans are too slow, and we don't have the feedback we need, which is knowing when the lift vector has a component in the direction of motion to pull, and a component in the opposite direction when you push. This could be automated, lots of little fast pitch motions. Purists laugh, but if you get 60:1 glides out of 15 meter with high speed automated pitch motions, they'll laugh all the way to the back of the scoresheet. Or, I guess, to the annual rules poll to get it banned... John Cochrane It all needs to be balanced. We learned a couple of decades ago that doing a lot of hard maneuvering generates more induced and separation drag that it gains in energy extracted from the atmosphere which is why no one does big, sharp zoomies into lift anymore - or if they do they pay a heavy price in glide performance. I suspect it is also why you need a pretty sharp gradient for dynamic soaring to work so you don't lose more energy than you gain pulling all those Gs. In terms of optimal flap setting, I suspect the gains are small unless you are prone to go long distances with the flaps set wrong (I admit occasionally set off on cruise in thermalling flap - oops!). I don't think setting them dynamically would make a ton of difference since you are ill-advised to make that sharp a change in attitude in the first place. If I were designing an automated flap system I'd put a low-pass filter on the inputs with a big (several seconds) time constant. If I remember correctly, Wil had an ASW-12 that somehow used the flap handle to set pitch attitude at cruise. It was a different era so I don't know that the lessons would apply to today's designs. 9B |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hey Dr. WB: That article about leaving the air cooler was in an April issue of "Flying" magazine, written, I think, by their technical editor, Peter Garrison. Key here is the "April" edition. That article could be related to the "inventions" we see coming out of Ridge Soaring in early April of each year...
:-) Ray Lovinggood Carrboro |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Wouldn't powered flaps that could respond fast enough to extract energy from gusts fit in the same category as powered boundary layer suction and be illegal per FAI racing rules?
Kirk 66 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Altimeter setting | Tom[_12_] | Soaring | 25 | January 31st 12 02:15 AM |
Automated Assisted Flight System | James Long | Home Built | 2 | March 5th 06 09:58 AM |
FAI/IGC/CAI File Name Decoding - Automated!! | ContestID67 | Soaring | 9 | September 24th 05 09:26 AM |
Setting QNH | BTIZ | Piloting | 31 | March 12th 04 04:29 PM |
And they say the automated Weather Station problems "ASOS" are insignificant because only light aircraft need Weather Observations and forecasts... | Roy | Piloting | 4 | July 12th 03 04:03 PM |