limit of trim = limit of travel?

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
nospam wrote in
news:bYydndxV96btLr_VnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@internode:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
nospam wrote in
newsbmdnXqirNejAr_VnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@internode:

wrote:
On May 5, 5:55 pm, WingFlaps wrote:

Does the elevator lift force and stall angle reflect trim
setting
at
all?
Cheers
Probably to some rather minor degree. The government just
demands
that the airplane behave in certain ways in various
configurations
and
maneuvers, so the designers have to build their airplanes to fit
within those specs. An elevator should never stall before the
wing, for example, or the whole machine could flip over onto its
back.
The
rising tail, rising because the stab/elevator stalled, would
experience an even higher AOA as it rose and things would get
very nasty. The certification guys want the nose to drop gently
as the
wing
stalls, which couldn't happen if the stab let go too soon. Some
airplanes (I.E. Ercoupe) had limited up-elevator to prevent wing
stall
and therefore the stall/spin scenario that killed so many in the
'40s
and '50s. The nose didn't drop because the wing stalled but
because the stab/elevator ran out of nose-up authority. It could
easily
have
been modified to get the stall. There was plenty of area there.
Only
problem was that guys would get slow on final and pancake into
the ground and break their backs with compression fractures.
Don't necessarily need to stall to get killed.
The Cessna Cardinal had a problem early on with the
stabilator
stalling in the landing flare and smashing the nosewheel on
pretty hard, and they fixed that with a slot in the leading edge
of the stabilator. IIRC the ground effect had something to do
with the
stab
stall problem. I never had any such thing happen at altitude in
the '68 (non-slotted) Cardinals.

Dan
Usually, in conventional aircraft, the tailplane force is a
download.
When this download is suddenly reduced, as in a tailplane stall,
there
is a sudden and probably fairly violent nose down pitch. How you
determine whether it is an elevator stall, or tailplane stall,
without
special instrumentation, is beyond me.
Cheers


You can't, and the reason you can't is because it's all one unit.
There's no difference because you can't seperate their functions.

Bertie
Well, even without instrumentation, one can determine if the
elevator power is sufficient to do a landing flare at say 1.3 Vs
minus 5kts at forward CG. Increasing elevator area may be one method
of increasing elevator power. Also you cannot treat the elevator
and tailplane as
one
unit where elevator hinge moments are needed to be of a particular
(algebraic)sign ie stick free longitudinal static stability
measurement.
Cheers



Sure you can, one without the other is notreally much of anything.
they work together.

Bertie

Of coarse you can Bertie Buttlipp, you know everything, you know
everyone, you've done everything. Gotta link?



Don;'t need one, wannabe boi.


Bertie

nospam wrote in
node:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
nospam wrote in
news:bYydndxV96btLr_VnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@internode:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
nospam wrote in
newsbmdnXqirNejAr_VnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@internode:

wrote:
On May 5, 5:55 pm, WingFlaps wrote:

Does the elevator lift force and stall angle reflect trim
setting
at
all?
Cheers
Probably to some rather minor degree. The government just
demands
that the airplane behave in certain ways in various
configurations
and
maneuvers, so the designers have to build their airplanes to fit
within those specs. An elevator should never stall before the
wing,
for example, or the whole machine could flip over onto its back.
The
rising tail, rising because the stab/elevator stalled, would
experience an even higher AOA as it rose and things would get
very
nasty. The certification guys want the nose to drop gently as the
wing
stalls, which couldn't happen if the stab let go too soon. Some
airplanes (I.E. Ercoupe) had limited up-elevator to prevent wing
stall
and therefore the stall/spin scenario that killed so many in the
'40s
and '50s. The nose didn't drop because the wing stalled but
because
the stab/elevator ran out of nose-up authority. It could easily
have
been modified to get the stall. There was plenty of area there.
Only
problem was that guys would get slow on final and pancake into
the
ground and break their backs with compression fractures. Don't
necessarily need to stall to get killed.
The Cessna Cardinal had a problem early on with the
stabilator
stalling in the landing flare and smashing the nosewheel on
pretty
hard, and they fixed that with a slot in the leading edge of the
stabilator. IIRC the ground effect had something to do with the
stab
stall problem. I never had any such thing happen at altitude in
the
'68 (non-slotted) Cardinals.

Dan
Usually, in conventional aircraft, the tailplane force is a
download.
When this download is suddenly reduced, as in a tailplane stall,
there
is a sudden and probably fairly violent nose down pitch. How you
determine whether it is an elevator stall, or tailplane stall,
without
special instrumentation, is beyond me.
Cheers

You can't, and the reason you can't is because it's all one unit.
There's no difference because you can't seperate their functions.

Bertie
Well, even without instrumentation, one can determine if the
elevator
power is sufficient to do a landing flare at say 1.3 Vs minus 5kts
at
forward CG. Increasing elevator area may be one method of increasing
elevator power. Also you cannot treat the elevator and tailplane as
one
unit where elevator hinge moments are needed to be of a particular
(algebraic)sign ie stick free longitudinal static stability
measurement.
Cheers



Sure you can, one without the other is notreally much of anything.
they
work together.

Bertie
They only work "together", as you put, after a lot of careful
engineering of the individual components and the interaction between
them. Even then, testing often shows that further refinements are
necessary.

Take, for example 4 tails all of the same planform and aerofoil
section.

1. An all flying tail hydraulically operated.
The pivot point can be almost anywhere, hinge moments don't matter
much
if sufficient hydraulic power is available. No tabs are required and
control feel can be as simple as a set of springs.

2. An all flying tail manually operated.
The pivot point position has to be placed to achieve correct control
feel throughout the tail range of motion at all angles of attack the
tail will "see" in service. A anti-balance tab will be required - this
will affect the tail lift curve. A trim tab will be required,
depending
on the aerodynamic problems this may or may not be incorporated in the
anti-balance tab operation.

3. A fixed tail with an elevator.
The hinge positions can be comparatively easily calculated to achieve
the correct hinge moments for feel and stick fixed stability. To have
the same power as the two above more area is required. A trim tab is
required and an elevator down spring may be necessary to achieve the
same stable CG range as the above 2.

4 A fixed tail with an elevator which requires a geared balance tab
to
either increase or decrease elevator hinge moments and therefore
control
feel.

Similar to above but will be more or less powerful depending on the
direction of operation of the geared balance tab.


Sure it all works together but has to be designed to do it.

For those who were wondering about tab effect, or indeed elevator
effect
on total tail lift the following may help;
Each item can be considered separately.
There will be a basic tail camber lift component which in many cases
is
zero.
Then find the tailplane AOA and from the lift curve slope find tail Cl
-
put that into the normal lift equation.
At that particular tailplane AOA, select the elevator AOA and again
find
the Cl from the lift curve.
Then do the same for the tab.
Add the 3 solutions to get total tail lift.
Do this for the complete range of angle of attack for each component
and
you will know the total range (and direction) of tail lift.
Cheers


none of which contradicts what I said.


And BTW, you've read all this and you still don't get that the area
remains the same when the tab is deflected?


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .


none of which contradicts what I said.


And BTW, you've read all this and you still don't get that the area
remains the same when the tab is deflected?


Bertie


There ya go MXII, start changing your story.

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:L1HUj.31937$KJ1.1375
@newsfe19.lga:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .


none of which contradicts what I said.


And BTW, you've read all this and you still don't get that the area
remains the same when the tab is deflected?


Bertie


There ya go MXII, start changing your story.




Uh, yeh.


Can't read won't read.


Bwawhahwhahwhahwhahwhha!


Bertie

On May 8, 6:22 am, nospam wrote:

For those who were wondering about tab effect, or indeed elevator effect
on total tail lift the following may help;
Each item can be considered separately.
There will be a basic tail camber lift component which in many cases is
zero.
Then find the tailplane AOA and from the lift curve slope find tail Cl -
put that into the normal lift equation.
At that particular tailplane AOA, select the elevator AOA and again find
the Cl from the lift curve.
Then do the same for the tab.
Add the 3 solutions to get total tail lift.
Do this for the complete range of angle of attack for each component and
you will know the total range (and direction) of tail lift.
Cheers

Sorry, but each item can't be considered separately, any more
than an aileron can be designed or its effect determined without the
wing ahead of it. Removing the elevator from the stab, physically,
would make the stab almost useless, especially if it has an airfoil
shape and/or has aerodynamic balance. Working out numbers for an
elevator without considering the stab's effect on the camber and AOA
for the whole assembly is also useless. The air doesn't decide what
bits it will react to or ignore; it only sees an airfoil of some sort,
having at any given instant a particular camber and AOA, and the tab
is part of that assembly, whether deflected or not. The tab doesn't
contribute much, if any, to tail downforce, but does affect elevator
float position, and that elevator position sure does affect downforce.
Airplanes are not the sum of their parts. I wish it was that
simple.

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
nospam wrote in
node:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
nospam wrote in
news:bYydndxV96btLr_VnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@internode:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
nospam wrote in
newsbmdnXqirNejAr_VnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@internode:

wrote:
On May 5, 5:55 pm, WingFlaps wrote:

Does the elevator lift force and stall angle reflect trim
setting
at
all?
Cheers
Probably to some rather minor degree. The government just
demands
that the airplane behave in certain ways in various
configurations
and
maneuvers, so the designers have to build their airplanes to fit
within those specs. An elevator should never stall before the
wing,
for example, or the whole machine could flip over onto its back.
The
rising tail, rising because the stab/elevator stalled, would
experience an even higher AOA as it rose and things would get
very
nasty. The certification guys want the nose to drop gently as the
wing
stalls, which couldn't happen if the stab let go too soon. Some
airplanes (I.E. Ercoupe) had limited up-elevator to prevent wing
stall
and therefore the stall/spin scenario that killed so many in the
'40s
and '50s. The nose didn't drop because the wing stalled but
because
the stab/elevator ran out of nose-up authority. It could easily
have
been modified to get the stall. There was plenty of area there.
Only
problem was that guys would get slow on final and pancake into
the
ground and break their backs with compression fractures. Don't
necessarily need to stall to get killed.
The Cessna Cardinal had a problem early on with the
stabilator
stalling in the landing flare and smashing the nosewheel on
pretty
hard, and they fixed that with a slot in the leading edge of the
stabilator. IIRC the ground effect had something to do with the
stab
stall problem. I never had any such thing happen at altitude in
the
'68 (non-slotted) Cardinals.

Dan
Usually, in conventional aircraft, the tailplane force is a
download.
When this download is suddenly reduced, as in a tailplane stall,
there
is a sudden and probably fairly violent nose down pitch. How you
determine whether it is an elevator stall, or tailplane stall,
without
special instrumentation, is beyond me.
Cheers

You can't, and the reason you can't is because it's all one unit.
There's no difference because you can't seperate their functions.

Bertie
Well, even without instrumentation, one can determine if the
elevator
power is sufficient to do a landing flare at say 1.3 Vs minus 5kts
at
forward CG. Increasing elevator area may be one method of increasing
elevator power. Also you cannot treat the elevator and tailplane as
one
unit where elevator hinge moments are needed to be of a particular
(algebraic)sign ie stick free longitudinal static stability
measurement.
Cheers


Sure you can, one without the other is notreally much of anything.
they
work together.

Bertie
They only work "together", as you put, after a lot of careful
engineering of the individual components and the interaction between
them. Even then, testing often shows that further refinements are
necessary.

Take, for example 4 tails all of the same planform and aerofoil
section.
1. An all flying tail hydraulically operated.
The pivot point can be almost anywhere, hinge moments don't matter
much
if sufficient hydraulic power is available. No tabs are required and
control feel can be as simple as a set of springs.

2. An all flying tail manually operated.
The pivot point position has to be placed to achieve correct control
feel throughout the tail range of motion at all angles of attack the
tail will "see" in service. A anti-balance tab will be required - this
will affect the tail lift curve. A trim tab will be required,
depending
on the aerodynamic problems this may or may not be incorporated in the
anti-balance tab operation.

3. A fixed tail with an elevator.
The hinge positions can be comparatively easily calculated to achieve
the correct hinge moments for feel and stick fixed stability. To have
the same power as the two above more area is required. A trim tab is
required and an elevator down spring may be necessary to achieve the
same stable CG range as the above 2.

4 A fixed tail with an elevator which requires a geared balance tab
to
either increase or decrease elevator hinge moments and therefore
control
feel.

Similar to above but will be more or less powerful depending on the
direction of operation of the geared balance tab.


Sure it all works together but has to be designed to do it.

For those who were wondering about tab effect, or indeed elevator
effect
on total tail lift the following may help;
Each item can be considered separately.
There will be a basic tail camber lift component which in many cases
is
zero.
Then find the tailplane AOA and from the lift curve slope find tail Cl
-
put that into the normal lift equation.
At that particular tailplane AOA, select the elevator AOA and again
find
the Cl from the lift curve.
Then do the same for the tab.
Add the 3 solutions to get total tail lift.
Do this for the complete range of angle of attack for each component
and
you will know the total range (and direction) of tail lift.
Cheers


none of which contradicts what I said.


And BTW, you've read all this and you still don't get that the area
remains the same when the tab is deflected?


Bertie

And exactly where did I state that tab area changes with deflection?
If you understood what I wrote it is quite clear that the full tab area
is included in the lift equation I mentioned above.

What I wrote totally contradicts your claim that the functions of the
components of an aircraft tail cannot be separated. They are separated,
and must be, for any effective analysis of the contribution of the tail
to the aircraft stability and control.

Anyway, I will leave it to other readers of this thread to come to their
own conclusions on the validity of the claims your posts, other than the
accurate claim concerning tab area.

Go ahead and have the last word - I know it will be written with the
supreme confidence of the totally ignorant.

I won't be lurking to read it.

Cheers

nospam wrote in
node:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
nospam wrote in
node:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
nospam wrote in
news:bYydndxV96btLr_VnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@internode:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
nospam wrote in
newsbmdnXqirNejAr_VnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@internode:

wrote:
On May 5, 5:55 pm, WingFlaps wrote:

Does the elevator lift force and stall angle reflect trim
setting
at
all?
Cheers
Probably to some rather minor degree. The government just
demands
that the airplane behave in certain ways in various
configurations
and
maneuvers, so the designers have to build their airplanes to
fit
within those specs. An elevator should never stall before the
wing,
for example, or the whole machine could flip over onto its
back.
The
rising tail, rising because the stab/elevator stalled, would
experience an even higher AOA as it rose and things would get
very
nasty. The certification guys want the nose to drop gently as
the
wing
stalls, which couldn't happen if the stab let go too soon. Some
airplanes (I.E. Ercoupe) had limited up-elevator to prevent
wing
stall
and therefore the stall/spin scenario that killed so many in
the
'40s
and '50s. The nose didn't drop because the wing stalled but
because
the stab/elevator ran out of nose-up authority. It could easily
have
been modified to get the stall. There was plenty of area there.
Only
problem was that guys would get slow on final and pancake into
the
ground and break their backs with compression fractures. Don't
necessarily need to stall to get killed.
The Cessna Cardinal had a problem early on with the
stabilator
stalling in the landing flare and smashing the nosewheel on
pretty
hard, and they fixed that with a slot in the leading edge of
the
stabilator. IIRC the ground effect had something to do with the
stab
stall problem. I never had any such thing happen at altitude in
the
'68 (non-slotted) Cardinals.

Dan
Usually, in conventional aircraft, the tailplane force is a
download.
When this download is suddenly reduced, as in a tailplane stall,
there
is a sudden and probably fairly violent nose down pitch. How
you
determine whether it is an elevator stall, or tailplane stall,
without
special instrumentation, is beyond me.
Cheers

You can't, and the reason you can't is because it's all one unit.
There's no difference because you can't seperate their functions.

Bertie
Well, even without instrumentation, one can determine if the
elevator
power is sufficient to do a landing flare at say 1.3 Vs minus 5kts
at
forward CG. Increasing elevator area may be one method of
increasing
elevator power. Also you cannot treat the elevator and tailplane
as
one
unit where elevator hinge moments are needed to be of a particular
(algebraic)sign ie stick free longitudinal static stability
measurement.
Cheers


Sure you can, one without the other is notreally much of anything.
they
work together.

Bertie
They only work "together", as you put, after a lot of careful
engineering of the individual components and the interaction between
them. Even then, testing often shows that further refinements are
necessary.

Take, for example 4 tails all of the same planform and aerofoil
section.
1. An all flying tail hydraulically operated.
The pivot point can be almost anywhere, hinge moments don't matter
much
if sufficient hydraulic power is available. No tabs are required and
control feel can be as simple as a set of springs.

2. An all flying tail manually operated.
The pivot point position has to be placed to achieve correct control
feel throughout the tail range of motion at all angles of attack the
tail will "see" in service. A anti-balance tab will be required -
this
will affect the tail lift curve. A trim tab will be required,
depending
on the aerodynamic problems this may or may not be incorporated in
the
anti-balance tab operation.

3. A fixed tail with an elevator.
The hinge positions can be comparatively easily calculated to
achieve
the correct hinge moments for feel and stick fixed stability. To
have
the same power as the two above more area is required. A trim tab
is
required and an elevator down spring may be necessary to achieve the
same stable CG range as the above 2.

4 A fixed tail with an elevator which requires a geared balance tab
to
either increase or decrease elevator hinge moments and therefore
control
feel.

Similar to above but will be more or less powerful depending on the
direction of operation of the geared balance tab.


Sure it all works together but has to be designed to do it.

For those who were wondering about tab effect, or indeed elevator
effect
on total tail lift the following may help;
Each item can be considered separately.
There will be a basic tail camber lift component which in many cases
is
zero.
Then find the tailplane AOA and from the lift curve slope find tail
Cl
-
put that into the normal lift equation.
At that particular tailplane AOA, select the elevator AOA and again
find
the Cl from the lift curve.
Then do the same for the tab.
Add the 3 solutions to get total tail lift.
Do this for the complete range of angle of attack for each component
and
you will know the total range (and direction) of tail lift.
Cheers


none of which contradicts what I said.


And BTW, you've read all this and you still don't get that the area
remains the same when the tab is deflected?


Bertie

And exactly where did I state that tab area changes with deflection?
If you understood what I wrote it is quite clear that the full tab
area
is included in the lift equation I mentioned above.

What I wrote totally contradicts your claim that the functions of the
components of an aircraft tail cannot be separated. They are
separated,
and must be, for any effective analysis of the contribution of the
tail
to the aircraft stability and control.

Anyway, I will leave it to other readers of this thread to come to
their
own conclusions on the validity of the claims your posts, other than
the
accurate claim concerning tab area.

Go ahead and have the last word - I know it will be written with the
supreme confidence of the totally ignorant.

I won't be lurking to read it.

Kay, see ya.


Bertie

On May 8, 4:44 pm, nospam wrote:

What I wrote totally contradicts your claim that the functions of the
components of an aircraft tail cannot be separated. They are separated,
and must be, for any effective analysis of the contribution of the tail
to the aircraft stability and control.


What you wrote contradicted someone's claim. And that's all it
did. It's easy to contradict anyone.
Maybe you could provide some references that say that the
effectiveness of each piece can be calculated as a separate item,
disregarding the effects of the other, adjacent parts, and then
arriving at an accurate overall lift simply by summing them. We'd be
very interested to see such proof.

Dan

wrote in news:13c4f3ca-ac69-4672-a6a0-
:

On May 8, 4:44 pm, nospam wrote:

What I wrote totally contradicts your claim that the functions of the
components of an aircraft tail cannot be separated. They are
separated,
and must be, for any effective analysis of the contribution of the
tail
to the aircraft stability and control.


What you wrote contradicted someone's claim. And that's all it
did. It's easy to contradict anyone.
Maybe you could provide some references that say that the
effectiveness of each piece can be calculated as a separate item,
disregarding the effects of the other, adjacent parts, and then
arriving at an accurate overall lift simply by summing them. We'd be
very interested to see such proof.

I'd buy a lottery ticket and vote for Pat Paulson immediatly afterwards.


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
I won't be lurking to read it.

Kay, see ya.


Bertie


Squirt, squirt there Squirty ****drip.