Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 37 of 37

Thread: Retractable, different from the Dragonfly

  1. #31

    Retractable, different from the Dragonfly

    Kev Armstrong wrote: Hi Paul

    Has anyone connected ailerons automatically to the rudder to give a balanced turn?

    Rudder alone gives bank doesn't it? (can't you tell I'm weight-shift and out of depth here)

    One a folding-wing type couldn't you make the front attachment point for the wing a Rose Joint, and cant the entire wing a fraction to initiate a turn? More clumsy but more simple and robust than ailerons, with the rear inner wing fixing point biased up and down by the controls, and the lift struts spread at fuse end and coming to a pivot point at the outer wing attachment (or kingpost like a flex and use cables to brace above and below)

    Amazed this sort of thing wasn't done pre WW1

    Cheers

    Kev
    CAR - coupled ailerons and rudder has been tried a few times - probaly most famous was the Ercoupe in the late 40's . But it does t really make it easier to fly really - makes it more difficult in a crosswind, and limits its capabilities so all Ercoupes were modified by owners to seperate ailerons and rudders.

    The reason rudder only was popular on early microlights was becuase the wings could be lighter without ailerons - considerably so, as with ailerons the wings need to be quite torsionally strong. Downside is that to get a rolling moment in response to rudder movement the wing needs to have quite a lot of dihedral which makes it Dutch roll a bit in turbulence - and fall over landing or taxiing in crosswinds.

    Most successful single turn control fixedwing IMHO is the Balerit. Rudder only but as its tandem wing the span is short and response is good with modest dihedral.

    But basically I think it's better all round with a fixedwing to have both rudder and ailerons and seperate controls for them - so much more capable.

    Rotating the whole wing for aileron control has been done - the Mistral is probably the most well known, and if you go back to the LAA SSDR design comp you might notice an entry form a certain Dewhurst fella, whose design also used this system....

    It allows for a lighter wing and a cleaner one - with no aileron slots etc ( but the join at fuselage must be done well. Handling is an issue, if a conventional aerofoil is used with a positive pitching moment the wings want to suck over to full roll one side or the other - so ' divergent' control feel. That is tamed on the mistral in two ways - a low pitching moment aerofoil, and big anti balance tabs. The Pouchel also has a low or even negative ( reflexed) pitching moment aerofoil. Ok but you start to lose out on CL Max.

    Paul

  2. #32
    Diamond geezer 500 Club
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    East Yorkshire
    Posts
    4,434

    Retractable, different from the Dragonfly

    By the sound of it you require a similar aerofoil shape to a flexwing, which could be handy as then the wing might be foldable; basically a bit of articulation with a common crossboom and twinned keel tubes and pockets. Articulation would pitch via the mainplane flex style, but roll via bias on each half by raising or lowering each keel tube at the back, nose hitched together. Rigid lift struts with a topless wing, lower cables OK with a kingposted design.

    Given a small lottery win, lots of alloy tube and a decent wing sail maker it could be done...;-)

    Or sweepback on stock SkyRanger type wings and a good dose of washout, maybe winglets to compensate for less efficient swept aerofoil

    Cheers

    Kev

  3. #33

    Retractable, different from the Dragonfly

    Quicksilver MX has stick coupled to the rudder (for yaw and resulting roll due to huge dihedral) and pedals coupled to spoilers. Did have the slight advantage that you could hit both pedals to raise both spoilers for increased sink or max braking on the ground...
    Dave

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Kaunas, Lietuva (Lithuania)
    Posts
    195

    Retractable, different from the Dragonfly

    Wow ... what a turn of the theme - from retracts to market issues

    We were making retracts for trikes since year 2000 and didn't find find them useful, just more complicated and heavier. But yes - they looked cool The concept was very different from what Paul and Aeros use.

    Regarding the market. All countries to the East from France and Italy require permits, or other type of certification for anything what flies. But LT CAA are a bit short handed, so para-trikes are flying free of their regulations and they are outnumbering other microlights.

    So, would be a bad idea to revise Annex II and make EU CAAs' authorities to let go free of regulations all single seated 300 kg MTOW microlights? Is that doable? I'm promoting my Trya now, but everyone are pessimistic - what the reason to sacrifice challenging yourself in the air when you have to go thru the same bureaucratic mess as flying CT?

    Would it make the market be more friendly for DragonChaser type a/c if EU CAA authorities would be forced to take their hands out of single 300 MTOW class?

  5. #35

    Retractable, different from the Dragonfly

    I dont think that could happen very easily. Closest is what EASA do now - and by putting all microlights in annex2 they say to all NAA's - do what you like with microlights - I.e no mandatory requirements from EASA.

    What you need to do is to lobby your CAA with the example of the UK CAA, and the supporting paperwork, to do the same. As here we are an 'old country' with a CAA normally very conservative, this must be a powerful precedent for other countries sport pilots and associations to use?

    Paul

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Kaunas, Lietuva (Lithuania)
    Posts
    195

    Retractable, different from the Dragonfly

    Paul Dewhurst wrote: I dont think that could happen very easily. Closest is what EASA do now - and by putting all microlights in annex2 they say to all NAA's - do what you like with microlights - I.e no mandatory requirements from EASA.

    What you need to do is to lobby your CAA with the example of the UK CAA, and the supporting paperwork, to do the same. As here we are an 'old country' with a CAA normally very conservative, this must be a powerful precedent for other countries sport pilots and associations to use?

    Paul
    So we do It isn't easy too They say the UK precedent isn't enough ... . They say Brits are very responsible and highly intelligent, so they can allow some deregulation. But I think Germans are very intelligent also and despite that fact their NAA wouldn't allow any deregulation at all also. So that is why we need a "third party" authority to push NAAs.

    EMF? EP? EC?

    Sorry taking the initial theme away even farther

  7. #37

    Retractable, different from the Dragonfly

    http://aeros.com.ua/manuals/ANT_manual_en.pdf

    fascinating....in part, as others have said, because it is very largely the Dragonfly...but also because it shows how the re-tract works. I think I was one of few Dragonfly pilots in my time who did not land with wheels up. This system would not preclude that happening, except that as a system it is easier to use, even if a lot less pretty than just pressing a button.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •