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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Woodstock Glider
And I might add that the Woodstock is an amazing sailplane or at least
a simple one that handles well with an amazing wing for a lightweight glider. It's remarkably fast and surprises me almost everytime I go somewhere with it. Gary Osoba called it the best kept secret in soaring. MM |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Woodstock Glider
On Apr 7, 7:36 pm, wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:03 pm, JJ Sinclair wrote: I believe theWoodstockhas an aerodynamic twist that allows the tip stall later (slower) then the root. I believe the airfoil was derived from the Gother 549 (modified by Erv Culver) then it blends into USA 35B at the tip. I flew the prototype and it didn't have a tip stall. JJ wrote: Thanks Guys Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no washout in this design is there? I'm looking at the plans, and there is no Washout, that I can detect, which is why I'm asking. The spar cutouts are exactly the same relative position on all the foil profiles, with no twisting. I am also an Aerospace Engineer, been working mostly mechanical for the last 8 years so my aerospace brain has cobwebs, but I do know how to read a drawing, my guess is it was this way for ease of construction. I'll re-read the assembly manual again. I scanned sheet one of the 13M drawings and have the foils now in a DWG format. What I'll do is use Pro/E to loft between foil 1 and 20, then insert each foil from 1 to 20 at station, then generate cross sections at each station to see if they all meet up. The original 12-meter Woodstock wing has no twist. Irv Culver (Lockheed Skunkworks) did the airfoils at the request of designer Jim Maupin (both now no longer with us, regrettably). Wingtip/aileron stall protection was secured via reducing the percent section near the wingtip. It's in the manual. Woodstock wing stall characteristics (at least for the original 12 meter wing, which I built and flew) were absolutely delightful: first time I stalled my n20609, on her maiden flight, I broke out loud laughing. Perfect stall behavior; as mannerly as it is possible to be. Despite low wing loading, the Woodstock feels as much like Libelle as it does a SGS1-26. Easier to keep rightside up in turbulence than a 1-26 in turbulence to boot, particularly on aerotow. Safe soaring, Bob Wander |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Woodstock Glider
On Apr 7, 8:51 pm, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Apr 7, 4:44 pm, wrote: Sorry, I just clued in on the aerodynamic twist. The tip foil should stall later, right. I got confused with the %18 vs %13, which is just the thickness and I wouldn't have thought the difference would have been significant, but if what Mr. Sinclair is saying, they are actually different foils then there would be some form of washout. Thanks guys. Yup, that's the way I understand it - there's no angular difference between the chord lines of the root and tip sections, but the profile differences between the root and tip airfoils make the wing act as if there are. Here's a couple of pictures from the Les Sparks site that shows the Woodstock wing profiles: http://members.aol.com/lessparks/clint20.jpg http://members.aol.com/woodglider/clint25t.jpg It's kind of hard to see in the photos, but if you look closely you can see that the profile goes from sort of flat-bottomed at the tip to a deeper-bellied (for lack of a better term) section at the root. Here's the home page for the site those photos are from: http://members.aol.com/woodglider/index.htm I haven't heard from Les for a while, I wonder what's up with his project. I scanned sheet one of the 13M drawings and have the foils That sounds like a good plan, that ought to work great. The main gotcha, and you've probably already thought of this, is that old blueprints tend to shrink and warp a bit as they age. Also, sometimes scanners add their own scaling errors. So its possible to accumulate a bunch of little errors that add up to something substantial. The plans probably have some key dimensions that you can use to correct the scaling of your DWGs; if you keep an eye on them you'll be fine. Yes, Hence me looking for data points. The chord at root and tip are known and have hard dimensions for. I can check that with % chord at root and tip for scaling in that direction, print off and check over the actual prints I have. I can also CNC Route some "test ribs" using my CNC router. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Woodstock Glider
On Friday, April 4, 2008 12:35:37 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Hello I have had my glider plans for approximatly 9 years now. My question is, does anyone know the Airfoil used by the Woodstock Glider? NACA ###? Thanks Herbie Dear Sir: Is there any way I could buy a copy of your complete set to build woodstock glider? Thanks Theodore R. Hansen |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Woodstock Glider
I have one of the earliest set of plans; the airfoil sheet is a full size template that you glue (contact cement)to a piece of 3/4" plywood. Each rib has its own profile printed inside the previous one as it tapers toward the tip. From this template you trace and sand the root rib first then sand the template to the next line and trace the next rib and so on. You keep sanding and tracing all the way out to the tip rib profile. THERE ASRE NO COORDINATES given or in anyway documented for any of the rib profiles. I recall a conversation I had with Jim in the late 1980's, I remember him telling me that when it came to the airfoil development, he said that Irv said "let me run the numbers". He came up with this design/method and Jim did as above to build the prototype.
The only parts I ever made for the airplane are the root ribs and the template itself. The original prints including the full size rib template drawing are the old style diazo prints and not accurately copyable; further, my print is used up to make the template. I suppose I could resurrect my project and make all the ribs, digitizing as I go. I estimate I could do this with an accuracy of approximately .05" which should be good enough for an airfoil working at these reynold's numbers as long as everything is "nice and smooth", as professor Alex Strojnik once told me; (see Low Power Laminar Aircraft Design/Structures/Technologies) Recognize that this will be quite time consuming. If anyone wants to seriously pursue this, contact me @ bpkuenen(at)gmail; I don't read these threads often |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Woodstock Glider
Hi. Did you ever follow through with the wing rib patterns or templates. I'm looking to start a build this summer. Any time savings on templates would be greatly appreciated and worth a financial fee to me. Turns out my plans are a copy from years ago so I dont really trust their accuracy. Either way, thanks for your time. Mark
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Woodstock Glider
On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 8:36:39 PM UTC-4, wrote:
I'm looking to start a build this summer. Any time savings on templates would be greatly appreciated and worth a financial fee to me. Something to think about. People who're building boats out of marine plywood often have their plywood cut out by laser. You can get your Woodstock paper pattern for ribs professionally scanned, then send the file to a job shop to be cut out. This is quite common for boat builders who're building from both traditional and new designs. It is cost effective because of the time savings and precision. The laser cutter can insure that the ribs for the left and right wings are identical, and symmetry is important. Google for 'custom laser cutting plywood'. You can send your file to multiple shops for competitive bid. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Woodstock Glider
On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 7:16:17 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
symmetry is important. Balance is important. Symmetry is way overrated, and I have the check templates to prove it. --Bob K. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Woodstock Glider
On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:35:16 PM UTC-4, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 7:16:17 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote: symmetry is important. Balance is important. Symmetry is way overrated, and I have the check templates to prove it. --Bob K. If I might suggest, have them cut on a CNC machine, not burned on a laser cutting machine. Adhesives don't stick well to charred wood. I have a set of Wood stock parts, even completed spares that I cut by hand on a bandsaw, maybe 30 years ago...other ships got in the way and I never got around to assembly...plans are sometimes procrastinated by life. However it is a very straight forward process, tack the drawing to a piece of HARD masonite. Cut to almost the line then sand to the line. Tack two sheets of the 1/4 inch Marine ply together and trace the master pattern onto the stacked plywood. Rough cut (within an 1/4 or a 1/2 with a hand jigsaw)then cut and sand to the line. Trim the master pattern to the next rib and do the same for all the ribs. You can make a second set of master patterns by making a second master pattern with the sacrificial pattern each time. Please feel free to contact me should you like. Jeff |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Woodstock Glider
On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:35:16 PM UTC-4, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 7:16:17 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote: symmetry is important. Balance is important. Symmetry is way overrated, and I have the check templates to prove it. --Bob K. Please say a little more about how this works. I was thinking that precision and symmetry affects the left right balance in an aircraft. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Woodstock project FOR SALE | MartyH | Soaring | 0 | August 15th 07 08:30 PM |
Woodstock spars | MartyH | Soaring | 11 | June 22nd 07 03:13 AM |
Woodstock Plans | [email protected] | Soaring | 4 | August 10th 06 11:11 PM |
Query on the Woodstock | Stealth Pilot | Soaring | 3 | July 25th 06 08:02 PM |
Woodstock Plans F/S | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | May 16th 05 10:06 PM |