![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
At 15:54 19 August 2003, Finbar wrote:
.....'There's a timing difference between the main wing and the tail. Entering lift there is a transition region where the lift is growing stronger as the glider moves forward. The main wing will be about 15 feet ahead of the tail. As a result the main wing will be at a higher angle of attack than the tail during the transition into the lift, creating a pitch-up tendency until the aircraft has gone through the transition region. This would tend to offset the pitch-down tendency that's been discussed. I've personally flown aircraft that pitched down, others that pitched up. Flex-wing hang gliders tend to pitch up very strongly on entering lift. However, I used to fly a rigid-wing hang glider (flying wing) that pitched down. I never could explain the difference. I can confirm that, at least in the Discus and Duo Discus flying with mid to aft C of G , if you simply cruise with a rigidly fixed elevator position - set for a reasonable median cruise speed of your choice - then the glider slowly pitches up and slows under positive acceleration as you enter regions of lift and pitches down and speeds up under reduced acceleration as you enter regions of sink. I have often flown this way in the last few years since reading about the technique as an aside in Reichmann (seventh edition in English, pages 64 and 133). He discusses it in connection with methods of trying to optimize g loading in transitional phases of flight between lift and sink and refers to it as 'the near optimal solution of simply flying with the controls locked'. I have often wondered why it works when the Yates effect would at first sight tend to have the opposite effect so thanks to Finbar for the obsevation above. Flying fixed elevator results in very nice gentle speed variation without the divergence you get flying hands off but it takes a surprising amount of concentration to keep the elevator fixed. (Perhaps a little 'dead man's handle' on the stick that temporarily fixed the elevator control alone would help.) It works best when the lift and sink are continually changing because if there is a long period of steady lift or sink without vertical acceleration from the airmass then the airspeed tends to settle back at the cruise speed for the elevator setting chosen. In those circumstances you need to depart from the fixed elevator. John Galloway |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PA28: Difference in constant speed prop vs fixed pitch | Nathan Young | Owning | 25 | October 10th 04 04:41 AM |
Constant speed props | GE | Piloting | 68 | July 3rd 04 04:08 AM |
Why do constant speed power setting charts limit RPM? | Ben Jackson | Piloting | 6 | April 16th 04 03:41 AM |
Practicing SFLs with a constant speed prop - how? | Ed | Piloting | 22 | April 16th 04 02:42 AM |
Constant Speed Prop vs Variable Engine Timing | Jay | Home Built | 44 | March 3rd 04 10:08 PM |