![]() |
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
At 22:36 14 November 2006, Noel.Wade wrote:
Ok, let me put on my 'total newbie' outfit here... Thinking in terms of real-world situations: In slow flight I'm sitting in my glider, holding the stick back and keeping the angle of attack high. I'm pulling a large Cl out of my main wing. The stick-back condition corresponds to an upward-deflection of the trailing edge of the elevator. So am I not generating a negative Cl with the horizontal tail in this condition? Not necessarily. Remember that the angle of attack of the tailplane increases at the same time that the angle of attack of the wing increases (in fact the downwash from the wing affects slightly the alpha on the tailplane but this can be disregarded for the present discussion). While the CL in steady flight for the wing ranges from about +1.50 to +0.30, the CL range for the tailplane is only about +0.20 to -0.15 (I am assuming an unflapped glider, for flapped gliders it is even less). The CL variation at the tailplane is thus only a fourth to a fifth of the wing's CL variation. In this light it is no longer surprising that the elevator in steady flight is counterintuitively deflected to cancel most of the lift (negative or positive) that the tailplane would produce in response to the changes in angle of attack. This situation regarding elevator deflection vs lift, and the slight inefficiency it entails, is the reason why all-flying tailplanes were popular with designers in the seventies, until they gave up due to the difficulty in ensuring nice handling and stability. Also, my wing airfoil still shows a Cm of about -0.09 at this high angle of attack. Its small, but definitely negative - so I still have a nose-down pitching moment from the wing - therefore don't I *need* that 'negative lift' (i.e. downward force) on the tail? (I guess this all assumes the CG is ahead of the wing's center of pressure/center of lift - but isn't that usually the case?) No, for stability all that is required is that the CG is ahead of the COMBINED centers of pressure of wing + tail. For modern sailplanes, even the foremost CG position is still behind the wing's center of pressure (except maybe for some dedicated aerobatic types, I don't know). Now why do designers wish to have the tail producing some upward lift at slow speed? Mainly because the spanwise lift on the wing dips a little in the vicinity of the fuselage. A bit of lift from the tailplane helps to smooth out this irregularity and leaves a more efficient wake behind the sailplane. Spamcans like Cessnas do have tails producing downward force all the time. Gliders cannot allow themselves such wastefulness! Regarding the shape of the elevator itself, Udo already wrote everything there is to say. Good questions Noel. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!! | Eliot Coweye | Home Built | 237 | February 13th 06 03:55 AM |
Most reliable homebuilt helicopter? | tom pettit | Home Built | 35 | September 29th 05 02:24 PM |
Mini-500 Accident Analysis | Dennis Fetters | Rotorcraft | 16 | September 3rd 05 11:35 AM |
AH64 tail rotor | CivetOne | Rotorcraft | 3 | October 23rd 03 07:18 PM |
The prone postion for tail gunners versus turrets. | The Enlightenment | Military Aviation | 8 | July 22nd 03 11:01 PM |