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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
TINSFOS question
am curious about 16.5m wing extensions, are ailerons usually
incorporated into these, or if the existing aileron/flaperon ran full span to begin with, would the roll rate suffer if the extension did not include the control surface? BTW...................Mr. Moffat inspired me when I saw him sawing the tip of his big Cirrus and gluing on that tip extension! also................I really like the polyhedral look, is that pretty typical for modern extensions? Thanks, Brad PS..........TINSFOS was the big debate during the Russia SIFOW controversy! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
TINSFOS question
On May 20, 6:06*pm, Brad wrote:
am curious about 16.5m wing extensions, are ailerons usually incorporated into these, or if the existing aileron/flaperon ran full span to begin with, would the roll rate suffer if the extension did not include the control surface? BTW...................Mr. Moffat inspired me when I saw him sawing the tip of his big Cirrus and gluing on that tip extension! also................I really like the polyhedral look, is that pretty typical for modern extensions? Thanks, Brad PS..........TINSFOS was the big debate during the Russia SIFOW controversy! Okay, I used http://www.acronymfinder.com/There-i...(TINSFOS).html to find out what TINSFOS is, what is SIFOW? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
TINSFOS question
On May 21, 9:26*am, Grider Pirate wrote:
On May 20, 6:06*pm, Brad wrote: am curious about 16.5m wing extensions, are ailerons usually incorporated into these, or if the existing aileron/flaperon ran full span to begin with, would the roll rate suffer if the extension did not include the control surface? BTW...................Mr. Moffat inspired me when I saw him sawing the tip of his big Cirrus and gluing on that tip extension! also................I really like the polyhedral look, is that pretty typical for modern extensions? Thanks, Brad PS..........TINSFOS was the big debate during the Russia SIFOW controversy! Okay, I usedhttp://www.acronymfinder.com/There-is-No-Substitute-for-Span-(gliding... to find out what TINSFOS is, what is SIFOW?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text Span Is FOr Wimps ? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
TINSFOS question
On May 21, 8:06*am, Tony wrote:
On May 21, 9:26*am, Grider Pirate wrote: On May 20, 6:06*pm, Brad wrote: am curious about 16.5m wing extensions, are ailerons usually incorporated into these, or if the existing aileron/flaperon ran full span to begin with, would the roll rate suffer if the extension did not include the control surface? BTW...................Mr. Moffat inspired me when I saw him sawing the tip of his big Cirrus and gluing on that tip extension! also................I really like the polyhedral look, is that pretty typical for modern extensions? Thanks, Brad PS..........TINSFOS was the big debate during the Russia SIFOW controversy! Okay, I usedhttp://www.acronymfinder.com/There-is-No-Substitute-for-Span-(gliding... to find out what TINSFOS is, what is SIFOW?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text Span Is FOr Wimps ?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I came up with Span Is For Old Wimps, but you can reach ISBT (Insufficient Span Ballistic Trajectory) if you take it too far. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
TINSFOS question
Brad -
IIRC, early ships with 16.5/16.6 extensions had no additional control surfaces. Ships with 17+ tips tended to have an aileron extension of some kind. As far as I know, only later-model ships have tended to have the polyhedral, and from what I understand its more about preventing wingtip scrapes (easier to leave the wingtip skid on the non-removable part of the wing) or requiring a beefy spar in the tip exension (to handle ground loads) than anything else. Enjoy, --Noel |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
TINSFOS question
On May 21, 1:06*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
Brad - IIRC, early ships with 16.5/16.6 extensions had no additional control surfaces. Ships with 17+ tips tended to have an aileron extension of some kind. As far as I know, only later-model ships have tended to have the polyhedral, and from what I understand its more about preventing wingtip scrapes (easier to leave the wingtip skid on the non-removable part of the wing) or requiring a beefy spar in the tip exension (to handle ground loads) than anything else. Enjoy, --Noel thanks Noel, that's sort of my strategy. I added the wing tip wheel fairing on the left wing and the plan is to add an extension someday, angle it a bit to allow for the wheel to still work, but that polyhedral just plain looks cool! Brad |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
TINSFOS question
On May 20, 9:06*pm, Brad wrote:
am curious about 16.5m wing extensions, are ailerons usually incorporated into these, or if the existing aileron/flaperon ran full span to begin with, would the roll rate suffer if the extension did not include the control surface? BTW...................Mr. Moffat inspired me when I saw him sawing the tip of his big Cirrus and gluing on that tip extension! also................I really like the polyhedral look, is that pretty typical for modern extensions? Thanks, Brad PS..........TINSFOS was the big debate during the Russia SIFOW controversy! Extending the ailerons allows the airfoil to be consistent to the tip which helps maintain expected spanwise lift distribution. It DOES complicate things. FWIW UH |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
TINSFOS question
If the plane has flaps, and you don't run the ailerons on out, you
probably won't be able to use all or any of the negative flap for higher speed running. The LS-3/17 manual says "Thou Shalt Not Use ANY negative flap if you installest thy long tips." They didn't put ailerons on their tips. The Nimbus 3 manual says "Thou shalt limit the flap travel to -2 (block thy "S" position) if you increase the span from 24.5 to 25.5 meters. Why? As Hank said, if you run the flaps up and don't have aileron (interconnected with the flaps, of course) on the extension, the tips pick up a LOT of load, as they are at a much higher angle of attack than the rest of the wing. If the plane does not have flaps, adding aileron will only complicate your life. The poly wing actually helps the plane "groove" a bit more in thermals. It can also have the benefit of pushing the downwash field down and outboard at the tips, potentially providing a small increase in effective span. Or maybe, less of a decrease in effective span as compared to a planar wing. And if your tip chord gets really small, it makes it so you are less likely to drag three feet of wing on the ground if a wing goes down on takeoff. My nickels worth, Steve |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
TINSFOS question
On May 23, 11:06*pm, Steve Leonard wrote:
If the plane has flaps, and you don't run the ailerons on out, you probably won't be able to use all or any of the negative flap for higher speed running. *The LS-3/17 manual says "Thou Shalt Not Use ANY negative flap if you installest thy long tips." *They didn't put ailerons on their tips. *The Nimbus 3 manual says "Thou shalt limit the flap travel to -2 (block thy "S" position) if you increase the span from 24.5 to 25.5 meters. *Why? *As Hank said, if you run the flaps up and don't have aileron (interconnected with the flaps, of course) on the extension, the tips pick up a LOT of load, as they are at a much higher angle of attack than the rest of the wing. If the plane does not have flaps, adding aileron will only complicate your life. The poly wing actually helps the plane "groove" a bit more in thermals. *It can also have the benefit of pushing the downwash field down and outboard at the tips, potentially providing a small increase in effective span. *Or maybe, less of a decrease in effective span as compared to a planar wing. *And if your tip chord gets really small, it makes it so you are less likely to drag three feet of wing on the ground if a wing goes down on takeoff. My nickels worth, Steve I was once told, by someone who is likely to know, that S-H put the poly in the tips to keep them from ground contact loads and then discovered it made the glider fly better. Not sure if this is true, but it makes sense. Driving the outer aileron in one direction(up) with spring down can allow poly and disconnects the mass which simplifies the flutter issue-provided extension ailerons are properly mass balanced. In any case, they look cool. UH |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
TINSFOS question
On May 24, 2:24*pm, wrote:
On May 23, 11:06*pm, Steve Leonard wrote: If the plane has flaps, and you don't run the ailerons on out, you probably won't be able to use all or any of the negative flap for higher speed running. *The LS-3/17 manual says "Thou Shalt Not Use ANY negative flap if you installest thy long tips." *They didn't put ailerons on their tips. *The Nimbus 3 manual says "Thou shalt limit the flap travel to -2 (block thy "S" position) if you increase the span from 24.5 to 25.5 meters. *Why? *As Hank said, if you run the flaps up and don't have aileron (interconnected with the flaps, of course) on the extension, the tips pick up a LOT of load, as they are at a much higher angle of attack than the rest of the wing. If the plane does not have flaps, adding aileron will only complicate your life. The poly wing actually helps the plane "groove" a bit more in thermals. *It can also have the benefit of pushing the downwash field down and outboard at the tips, potentially providing a small increase in effective span. *Or maybe, less of a decrease in effective span as compared to a planar wing. *And if your tip chord gets really small, it makes it so you are less likely to drag three feet of wing on the ground if a wing goes down on takeoff. My nickels worth, Steve I was once told, by someone who is likely to know, that S-H put the poly in the tips to keep them from ground contact loads and then discovered it made the glider fly better. Not sure if this is true, but it makes sense. Driving the outer aileron in one direction(up) with spring down can allow poly and disconnects the mass which simplifies the flutter issue-provided extension ailerons are properly mass balanced. In any case, they look cool. UH I suppose if I can make the whole damn glider, I can make tips with control surfaces! But.............that's down the road a ways. I agree, they look really cool and the polyhedral will make good use of the wing tip wheel I installed. Brad |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is no | gasman | Soaring | 0 | August 26th 05 06:39 PM |
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good | Excelsior | Home Built | 0 | April 22nd 05 01:11 AM |
Question about KLN-89B | Casey Wilson | Instrument Flight Rules | 9 | March 8th 04 08:07 PM |
Question about Question 4488 | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | October 27th 03 01:26 AM |
TINSFOS - looking for a Nimbus T in Europe somewhere | tango4 | Soaring | 0 | October 2nd 03 09:14 PM |