wing levelers

"Montblack" wrote

Automotive world is using electronic stability-control (ESC) systems with
documented success.

I'm guessing some variant of this is what you'll eventually cobble
together
in your garage.

More than likely, they are using piezzo electric rate sensors for the
direction information. They are relatively cheap, and do well at sensing
rapid changes. They have been used for a while in the RC airplane world, as
a stability aid, with good success, also. Any really stable electronic gyro
system in the commercial auto-pilots world, are much more expensive, and as
far as I know, not available to the public.

Problem is, piezzo sensors have a fairly fast "drift." which makes the
leveling ability good only for a few seconds. If you handed over control to
one of these units, within 30 seconds, you would be upside down, and the
unit would think everything is still OK.

In the RC world, if the plane makes a sudden move to go upside down, it
senses the sudden move and if the sticks have not commanded the sudden move,
it will move the control surfaces to stay right side up. It counts on you
keeping it somewhat upright, and recalibrates itself often - based on your
MarkII eyeballs telling the plane to fly level.

Same thing with the car unit in the links. It knows that you are going
straight, or following curves. (still reasonably slow changes compared to
sudden loss of control) It continually reminds itself that it is going
straight, and re-sets itself. Only when a real sudden move is made, does it
correctly sense that it is not going straight and the steering wheel wants
the car to go straight. The computer then makes corrections to keep the car
straight.

If a plane wing leveler were based only on these units, and the plane
started banking very slowly, the sensor would not realize it. That is the
drift. It would re-set as level, then the plane banks another slow degree,
and the unit re-sets, and the plane banks...you get the picture.

I believe the concoction that had some success, was a GPS wingtip
differential altitude sensor. It used these rate sensors in unison to help
backup the control movements and make the controls smooth. The units
re-set using the GPS info as the reality of what was level. You have to use
something (MarkII eyeballs or GPS) doing this.

Good luck to the OP, figuring out a homemade wing leveler. It is a tough
problem.
--
Jim in NC

Thanks for everyones input.

Our group was discussing flying in VFR only (no IMC or IFR) and wing leveler
only with respect to roll sensitivity of lightly wing loaded, short wing
spanned experimentals.

Trying to make summer flying in chop somewhat easier. We didn't plan on
turning over controls to the device and would still keep a light grip on the
stick; just wouldn't have to constantly play the stick.

Although we had the impression that a heavier plane would be more stable in
chop and require less than continual input by stick, that wasn't much of an
option G.

Although not discussed among us, I wonder if
an increased dihedral result is possible without actually increasing it
physically..

Still would appreciate a little discussion that I can pass on for the next
non-flying day.

Thanks, Dick


"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Montblack" wrote

Automotive world is using electronic stability-control (ESC) systems with
documented success.

I'm guessing some variant of this is what you'll eventually cobble
together
in your garage.

More than likely, they are using piezzo electric rate sensors for the
direction information. They are relatively cheap, and do well at sensing
rapid changes. They have been used for a while in the RC airplane world,
as
a stability aid, with good success, also. Any really stable electronic
gyro
system in the commercial auto-pilots world, are much more expensive, and
as
far as I know, not available to the public.

Problem is, piezzo sensors have a fairly fast "drift." which makes the
leveling ability good only for a few seconds. If you handed over control
to
one of these units, within 30 seconds, you would be upside down, and the
unit would think everything is still OK.

In the RC world, if the plane makes a sudden move to go upside down, it
senses the sudden move and if the sticks have not commanded the sudden
move,
it will move the control surfaces to stay right side up. It counts on you
keeping it somewhat upright, and recalibrates itself often - based on your
MarkII eyeballs telling the plane to fly level.

Same thing with the car unit in the links. It knows that you are going
straight, or following curves. (still reasonably slow changes compared to
sudden loss of control) It continually reminds itself that it is going
straight, and re-sets itself. Only when a real sudden move is made, does
it
correctly sense that it is not going straight and the steering wheel wants
the car to go straight. The computer then makes corrections to keep the
car
straight.

If a plane wing leveler were based only on these units, and the plane
started banking very slowly, the sensor would not realize it. That is the
drift. It would re-set as level, then the plane banks another slow
degree,
and the unit re-sets, and the plane banks...you get the picture.

I believe the concoction that had some success, was a GPS wingtip
differential altitude sensor. It used these rate sensors in unison to
help
backup the control movements and make the controls smooth. The units
re-set using the GPS info as the reality of what was level. You have to
use
something (MarkII eyeballs or GPS) doing this.

Good luck to the OP, figuring out a homemade wing leveler. It is a tough
problem.
--
Jim in NC

Dick,

I think that winglets would improve roll stability, and L/D, climb
performance and high alt. performance.

Jan Carlsson

www.jcpropellerdesign.com


"Dick" skrev i meddelandet
m...
Thanks for everyones input.

Our group was discussing flying in VFR only (no IMC or IFR) and wing
leveler
only with respect to roll sensitivity of lightly wing loaded, short wing
spanned experimentals.

Trying to make summer flying in chop somewhat easier. We didn't plan on
turning over controls to the device and would still keep a light grip on
the
stick; just wouldn't have to constantly play the stick.

Although we had the impression that a heavier plane would be more stable
in
chop and require less than continual input by stick, that wasn't much of
an
option G.

Although not discussed among us, I wonder if
an increased dihedral result is possible without actually increasing it
physically..

Still would appreciate a little discussion that I can pass on for the next
non-flying day.

Thanks, Dick


"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Montblack" wrote

Automotive world is using electronic stability-control (ESC) systems
with
documented success.

I'm guessing some variant of this is what you'll eventually cobble
together
in your garage.

More than likely, they are using piezzo electric rate sensors for the
direction information. They are relatively cheap, and do well at
sensing
rapid changes. They have been used for a while in the RC airplane
world,
as
a stability aid, with good success, also. Any really stable electronic
gyro
system in the commercial auto-pilots world, are much more expensive, and
as
far as I know, not available to the public.

Problem is, piezzo sensors have a fairly fast "drift." which makes the
leveling ability good only for a few seconds. If you handed over
control
to
one of these units, within 30 seconds, you would be upside down, and the
unit would think everything is still OK.

In the RC world, if the plane makes a sudden move to go upside down, it
senses the sudden move and if the sticks have not commanded the sudden
move,
it will move the control surfaces to stay right side up. It counts on
you
keeping it somewhat upright, and recalibrates itself often - based on
your
MarkII eyeballs telling the plane to fly level.

Same thing with the car unit in the links. It knows that you are going
straight, or following curves. (still reasonably slow changes compared
to
sudden loss of control) It continually reminds itself that it is going
straight, and re-sets itself. Only when a real sudden move is made,
does
it
correctly sense that it is not going straight and the steering wheel
wants
the car to go straight. The computer then makes corrections to keep the
car
straight.

If a plane wing leveler were based only on these units, and the plane
started banking very slowly, the sensor would not realize it. That is
the
drift. It would re-set as level, then the plane banks another slow
degree,
and the unit re-sets, and the plane banks...you get the picture.

I believe the concoction that had some success, was a GPS wingtip
differential altitude sensor. It used these rate sensors in unison to
help
backup the control movements and make the controls smooth. The units
re-set using the GPS info as the reality of what was level. You have to
use
something (MarkII eyeballs or GPS) doing this.

Good luck to the OP, figuring out a homemade wing leveler. It is a
tough
problem.
--
Jim in NC

"Jan Carlsson" wrote in message
...
Dick,

I think that winglets would improve roll stability, and L/D, climb
performance and high alt. performance.

Jan Carlsson

At the speeds we fly, winglets do little to nothing. They only become
useful at higher speeds.
--
Jim in NC

Jim,

I disagree. Winglet are most effective at high angles of attack. They
significantly improve roll rate and control at low speeds. Their use on
several models of sailplanes solved the problem of the wing dropping during
the initial takeoff roll. They also decrease the speed at which the wing
stalls.

Here is a good article that may, for some, be worth reading.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/Te...lets/Masak.htm

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder


"Morgans" wrote in message
...

At the speeds we fly, winglets do little to nothing. They only become
useful at higher speeds.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:

"Jan Carlsson" wrote in message
...

Dick,

I think that winglets would improve roll stability, and L/D, climb
performance and high alt. performance.

Jan Carlsson


At the speeds we fly, winglets do little to nothing. They only become
useful at higher speeds.

But they will look pretty.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

When I said "I think" I was very humble...

Regarding winglets I am an "expert" (definition of an expert is someone that
have read what other have don :-)
Peter Masak did a great pioneer work on effective winglets. result was
winglets that didn't decrease performance at high speed as the large earlier
winglets.

Winglets make the wing act like it was of greater span, the improvement is
larger then if the wing was lengthened the amount of the winglets height.
And the increase in bending moment is smaller then the longer wing will
produce.

Winglets and longer wings reduce the induced drag (that come from the work
of producing lift) that work is harder at low indicated speed, =slow speed
at low altitude, low indicated speed at high altitude and getting there.

So even an "high speed" jetliner will be helped by using winglets, it spend
a long time at high weight climbing to economical cruising altitude, there
it cruise at low indicated speed (what pilot see) or more correct low
dynamic pressure.

Ok, no one here on RAH build jet liner, some fly them, and some build high
performance aeroplanes that have the capability to cruise at high altitude,
other aeroplanes can benefit from improvements of winglets too, if you fly
very long distances and want most economic, you would like to cruise near
(high side of) speed for best L/D ( at alt it will still go fast) here
winglets will help a lot.
other situations is to improve take off and climb and roll stability AND
roll rate, better aileron efficiency.

In this case Dick want more stability on a ? small big M ? plane, with
winglets he get a wing that "think" that the dihedral is grater then it is,
and improve the short wings low speed performance. don correct it would not
hurt cruise performance.

Jan in ME
www.jcpropellerdesign.com
Propeller and Performance software


"Morgans" skrev i meddelandet
...

"Jan Carlsson" wrote in message
...
Dick,

I think that winglets would improve roll stability, and L/D, climb
performance and high alt. performance.

Jan Carlsson

At the speeds we fly, winglets do little to nothing. They only become
useful at higher speeds.
--
Jim in NC

"Jan Carlsson" wrote in message

When I said "I think" I was very humble...

I also attempt to be humble. You can always find someone smarter, or
bigger, or stronger or ..... than yourself.

Regarding winglets I am an "expert" (definition of an expert is someone
that
have read what other have don :-)

Perhaps I have more reading to do.

Peter Masak did a great pioneer work on effective winglets. result was
winglets that didn't decrease performance at high speed as the large
earlier
winglets.

Winglets make the wing act like it was of greater span,

This I know.

the improvement is
larger then if the wing was lengthened the amount of the winglets height.
And the increase in bending moment is smaller then the longer wing will
produce.

This I did not know.

Winglets and longer wings reduce the induced drag (that come from the work
of producing lift) that work is harder at low indicated speed, =slow speed
at low altitude, low indicated speed at high altitude and getting there.

So even an "high speed" jetliner will be helped by using winglets, it
spend
a long time at high weight climbing to economical cruising altitude, there
it cruise at low indicated speed (what pilot see) or more correct low
dynamic pressure.

Do you have any suggestions that I could do some more reading? I hate it
when I am wrong! :-)
--
Jim in NC

My humour doesn't always come to its right in English not even Swedish. Some
people recognise it as humor. :-)

There was an article by Peter Masak on the net some years ago, I have saved
it on the puter at my office.

As an Captain you can always ref. to §1= Captain is always right. or
§2=if Captain is wrong, §1 is what rules. (not a good one in a plane)

Jan
www.jcpropellerdesign.com


"Morgans" skrev i meddelandet
...

"Jan Carlsson" wrote in message

When I said "I think" I was very humble...

I also attempt to be humble. You can always find someone smarter, or
bigger, or stronger or ..... than yourself.

Regarding winglets I am an "expert" (definition of an expert is someone
that
have read what other have don :-)

Perhaps I have more reading to do.

Peter Masak did a great pioneer work on effective winglets. result was
winglets that didn't decrease performance at high speed as the large
earlier
winglets.

Winglets make the wing act like it was of greater span,

This I know.

the improvement is
larger then if the wing was lengthened the amount of the winglets
height.
And the increase in bending moment is smaller then the longer wing will
produce.

This I did not know.

Winglets and longer wings reduce the induced drag (that come from the
work
of producing lift) that work is harder at low indicated speed, =slow
speed
at low altitude, low indicated speed at high altitude and getting there.

So even an "high speed" jetliner will be helped by using winglets, it
spend
a long time at high weight climbing to economical cruising altitude,
there
it cruise at low indicated speed (what pilot see) or more correct low
dynamic pressure.

Do you have any suggestions that I could do some more reading? I hate it
when I am wrong! :-)
--
Jim in NC

Jim,

In addition the to article I mentioned earlier,
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/Te...lets/Masak.htm, take a look
at the series posted on
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/Te...ts/PSU_Ref.htm

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder


"Morgans" wrote in message
...


Do you have any suggestions that I could do some more reading? I hate it
when I am wrong! :-)
--
Jim in NC