Tandem-wing Airplanes

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

On Feb 4, 3:04 pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote

He's wrong, oh so wrong in this case as well.

I'm not surprised at that, either. He had not been right about
anything,
that I had noticed.

To tell the truth, (no surprise) I have not been reading this thread
for content. I've mainly just been skipping to the next message
without really reading them, to get them marked off as read.
--
Jim in NC

C&B!!!!!!!!

J&B!!!!!!!

The only thing Ken would be knowledgeable about would be giving B. J.'s
!!!!!!!!!
--
Jim in NC

On Feb 4, 3:52 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Just shoot yourself now Dan.

Bertie

Bang.

Dan

On Feb 4, 4:39 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Morgans" wrote :





"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote

well, it must be at least a bit interesting for an experimenter. The
rocket
man posted som salient stuff there and understanding the relationship
between CG and the aerodynamic center is a very useful thing for a
builder.
Not strictly neccesary, of course, but definitely nice to know. Less
so for
a pilot...

I feel I have a good grip on the relationship between CG an AC for
conventional planforms. I have no interest in canards or tandem
lifting wings.

I did pay a bit more attention to a few of the posts, though, and his
being some of them.

Well, it's relevant to conventional airplanes in an indirect sort of way,
which is my point. If you truly understand the principles involved, you
then thoroughly understand enough to trim your homebuilt. My own airplane
is notorious for needing stab adjustments after the first flight. A real
PITA since the stab is welded into position ( I plan to make mine
adjustable with shims) Now, the stab on my airplane has a negative
incidence, while the top wing is set at zero and the bottom is set at plus
2 degrees. Doesn't seem to add up, does it? The stab is flat plate, BTW.
So, waht's all that about?

Bertie

I hear a candiate screamin for the Darwin Awards.
Leave flying to us pro's, you stay in outhouse.
.......

wrote in news:1e9f68a1-fd54-4824-9eeb-
:

On Feb 4, 3:52 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Just shoot yourself now Dan.

Bertie

Bang.

Dan


Better?

Bertie

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

On Feb 4, 4:39 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Morgans" wrote
:





"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote

well, it must be at least a bit interesting for an experimenter.
The rocket
man posted som salient stuff there and understanding the
relationship between CG and the aerodynamic center is a very
useful thing for a builder.
Not strictly neccesary, of course, but definitely nice to know.
Less so for
a pilot...

I feel I have a good grip on the relationship between CG an AC for
conventional planforms. I have no interest in canards or tandem
lifting wings.

I did pay a bit more attention to a few of the posts, though, and
his being some of them.

Well, it's relevant to conventional airplanes in an indirect sort of
way, which is my point. If you truly understand the principles
involved, you then thoroughly understand enough to trim your
homebuilt. My own airplane is notorious for needing stab adjustments
after the first flight. A real PITA since the stab is welded into
position ( I plan to make mine adjustable with shims) Now, the stab
on my airplane has a negative incidence, while the top wing is set at
zero and the bottom is set at plus 2 degrees. Doesn't seem to add up,
does it? The stab is flat plate, BTW. So, waht's all that about?

Bertie

I hear a candiate screamin for the Darwin Awards.
Leave flying to us pro's, you stay in outhouse.



Yeah, how have I cheated the odds so long? I must be the luckiest
******* aloive to have been flying 2 and a half years without killing
myself.


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote

Well, it's relevant to conventional airplanes in an indirect sort of way,
which is my point. If you truly understand the principles involved, you
then thoroughly understand enough to trim your homebuilt. My own airplane
is notorious for needing stab adjustments after the first flight. A real
PITA since the stab is welded into position ( I plan to make mine
adjustable with shims) Now, the stab on my airplane has a negative
incidence, while the top wing is set at zero and the bottom is set at plus
2 degrees. Doesn't seem to add up, does it? The stab is flat plate, BTW.
So, waht's all that about?

This is a Hartz biplane, as I think I recall? The incidence you describe
sounds like it must have negative stagger, no?

If it were me, I think I would make your stab hinged at the rear, with an
arrangement to move the leading edge up and down for trim, which would take
care of your needing to adjust the incidence.

Do you think that could be adapted to your plane?

I'll have to look that Hartz up, if that is what it is.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote

Well, it's relevant to conventional airplanes in an indirect sort of
way, which is my point. If you truly understand the principles
involved, you then thoroughly understand enough to trim your
homebuilt. My own airplane is notorious for needing stab adjustments
after the first flight. A real PITA since the stab is welded into
position ( I plan to make mine adjustable with shims) Now, the stab
on my airplane has a negative incidence, while the top wing is set at
zero and the bottom is set at plus 2 degrees. Doesn't seem to add up,
does it? The stab is flat plate, BTW. So, waht's all that about?

This is a Hartz biplane, as I think I recall? The incidence you
describe
sounds like it must have negative stagger, no?

Nope, it's a pisitive stagger biplane.

If it were me, I think I would make your stab hinged at the rear, with
an arrangement to move the leading edge up and down for trim, which
would take care of your needing to adjust the incidence.

Well, some guys have done this, but I'm not that crazy about the piper
jackscrew system in an airplane that will be turned up side down. The
plan is to have it hinged at the rear as you suggest, and then have a
attachment at the front that's shimmable and get it right that way.

Do you think that could be adapted to your plane?

Yeah, a couple of guys have done that, I think .

I'll have to look that Hartz up, if that is what it is.


www.weebeastie.com


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:1e9f68a1-fd54-4824-9eeb-
:

On Feb 4, 3:52 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Just shoot yourself now Dan.

Bertie

Bang.

Dan


Better?

Bertie

The above brings to mind the title and lyrics of the song for the movie and
TV series M*A*S*H.

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:1e9f68a1-fd54-4824-9eeb-
:

On Feb 4, 3:52 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Just shoot yourself now Dan.

Bertie

Bang.

Dan


Better?

Bertie

The above brings to mind the title and lyrics of the song for the
movie and TV series M*A*S*H.

Heh heh. Wheras Kenny's theme song is "I wanna be sedated"


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote

Nope, it's a pisitive stagger biplane.

That's strange. Every positive stagger biplane I have looked at had the top
wing with a couple degrees more incidence than the lower wing. Know why it
is like the opposite?

Well, some guys have done this, but I'm not that crazy about the piper
jackscrew system in an airplane that will be turned up side down. The
plan is to have it hinged at the rear as you suggest, and then have a
attachment at the front that's shimmable and get it right that way.

You could do it without using a jackscrew, I would think. How about
something like a cam on each side, with a shaft turning a cam on each side,
and a belcrank to turn the shaft. You could limit the range of motion
possible, so that even if something broke, it would be flyable. I
understand not wanting to trust a jackscrew.

It would probably add some complexity and weight, though, but it would be an
advantage for top speed, I would think.

--
Jim in NC