Mechanics of Elevator Trim. In Detail.

On Jun 17, 7:23 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 17, 12:57 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



On Jun 16, 10:55 am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

On Jun 16, 10:08 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On Jun 15, 9:16 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

On Jun 15, 6:34 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

I concur with Dan on his last two posts, yeah that's
rare, but anyway...
I designed and tested (models) of a fantastic plane,
but when I chose between putting my wife and kids
in my fantastic plane or into a proven (safe) C172,
I chose the C172.
Here's why: If my machine cracked up due to a fault
in my design, and killed my family except for me, I'd
feel obligated to shoot myself, though I wouldn't.

That said, build your machine, put it threw it's paces
then take on a passenger, who knows what the tag
"EXPERMENTAL" means on the side of the A/C,
and have fun.
Ken-

Perhaps there will not be time in my life to see a design realized,
but if I were so fortunate, I would probably do just that...get in it
myself first.
But before doing that, I would let it fly itself over a desert, since
controls would be software anyway.

That sounds like a good idea.
A 1/4 scale is good, it can be powered by a cheap
chainsaw motor.
Do you have any general ideas for a lay-out yet?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

If you lived close by, I'd give you some help.

I live in Austin, Texas.

I'm currently near Vernon BC.

Some locals and I have been toying around with the idea of renting a
garage for experiments, though I think that is premature. I would
rather use something like SolidWorks to create a model to verify that
the aircraft would fly first. I do have a vague vision of the form-
factor of the aircraft, but as I see it, there are two crucial things
that need to be determined before putting both feet in the water:
1. The PAV I envision relies on an unproven, unorthodox hypothesis of
the origin of lift. I say concept because there is no weird science
involved like anti-gravity machines or anything like that, but if it
were to fly, it would require a reaxmination of the prevailing
theories. This is the hardest part, and I have been concentrating
only on the lift elements. A lot of math and a prototype of certain
control surfaces would help.

Perhaps a rotary wing?

Hah...I realized two nights ago before going to bed that the form of
the airfoils about the aircraft is essentially unlimited. What is
really important is understanding why there is a net upward force on
the airfoil. Once that is understood, the sky is the limit. I have
purposely refrained from imagining all the different forms of airfoils
for the time being. It would only use brain cycles I must research
for tedious problems in number theory at present. But my guess is that
the airfoil forms could range from a bland planar to the ultra-
exotic. And yes, the standard rotary wing might be a component.

Lapin wrote, "standard rotary wing".

Nope, we don't that here, it's been done :-)...
How about a rotary wing using a bi-plane or tri-plane?
Seriously, we could lighten the structure and reduce
the blade radius, possibly too, the RPM.
What do you think?

2. The second problem is a problem that would be faced by any designer
of a PAV, and that is the power source. The PAV I envision would have
an extremely high reliance on electrial power (the lift engine itself
would rely on electrical power), and this is a hard problem.
Conventional fuels, in 2008, still appear to be the most pratical
approach, even if the fuel is only used to operate a generator.

Interesting, electrics have made good advances,
maybe regenerative braking during descent such
as some vehicles use while going down hill.
Solar cells on the top of the wings are proven
practical to keep the batteries up to full charge
while sitting on the ground.

Does not hurt, if the weight problem can be eliminated.

Well I think ICE still has the weight advantage, but
at X-mas I bought a few remote controlled electric
heliocopters that impressed me.
I think a single seat electic helo, with 30 minutes range
would sell. Fly to a place where you swap batteries
and you're off again, very safe even in bad weather.

As far as the engine, I cannot say what it is yet, but can say that it
doesn't use an ICE.

Mean, Green and Lean!

Green is definitely an objective. Electronics is the way to move
forward.

I was looking at the the Honda Clarity FCX today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_FCX_Clarity

Apparently they were able to get the size of fuel cell to that of
chassis of desktop computer.

I was a "process *sales* engineer" for awhile specializing
in factory automation, so you don't need to sell me on
electronics, that's my job :-).
Let's use an ICE in prototype stage, to keep R&D cost
down then go greener in evolution.
I'd perfer electric because it's quieter.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Sounds Good, Regards
Ken S. Tucker

I love it when great minds come together.


Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Jun 17, 7:23 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 17, 12:57 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



On Jun 16, 10:55 am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 16, 10:08 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Jun 15, 9:16 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 15, 6:34 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

I'd perfer electric because it's quieter.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Sounds Good, Regards
Ken S. Tucker

On Jun 18, 11:12 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
I love it when great minds come together.

Yeah, and electric/electronic chopper that can
sit in your backyard, taking up minimal space
that you fly with a flick of a switch quietly so the
old bag next door can't hear it over her vibrator.

I'm thinking contra-rotating multiple (bi-plane or triplane)
helo blades for yaw control, and I'm still working on
pitch...easy to do, but's what's best??

I'm also lookin' at an emergency chute that can
pop off the top for a 1/2 assed decent, so we might
eliminate pitch control on the blades, and make it
cheaper and simpler, in case of failure, than having
to do reverse auto gyroration.

I bet we could form a team of fella's who could create
a Limited Liabilty Corporation. That's how Boeing began,
21 guys as I recall.

I think we should start a new thread and put this
product together.
What do you think?
Ken S. Tucker

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Jun 18, 11:12 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
I love it when great minds come together.


What do you think?
Ken S. Tucker

Ken, since you asked I think first and foremost that you have no
appreciation for sarcasm. Second, I think your helo wouldn't work for
way to many reasons to count.

On Jun 18, 2:01 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Jun 18, 11:12 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
I love it when great minds come together.

What do you think?
Ken S. Tucker

Ken, since you asked I think first and foremost that you have no
appreciation for sarcasm. Second, I think your helo wouldn't work for
way to many reasons to count.

I flew the prototypes they work!
Check out it out for yourself.
Hell, I'll even send you one.
Ken

In rec.aviation.piloting Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Jun 18, 11:12 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
I love it when great minds come together.

Yeah, and electric/electronic chopper that can
sit in your backyard, taking up minimal space
that you fly with a flick of a switch quietly so the
old bag next door can't hear it over her vibrator.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the greater than an order of
magnitude improvements in batteries necessary to do this.

Going to hard to keep all that moving air quiet.

I'm thinking contra-rotating multiple (bi-plane or triplane)
helo blades for yaw control, and I'm still working on
pitch...easy to do, but's what's best??

If it is so easy, why do few have it?

I'm also lookin' at an emergency chute that can
pop off the top for a 1/2 assed decent, so we might
eliminate pitch control on the blades, and make it
cheaper and simpler, in case of failure, than having
to do reverse auto gyroration.

Deploying a chute through rotor blades is going to be interesting to
say the least.

I bet we could form a team of fella's who could create
a Limited Liabilty Corporation. That's how Boeing began,
21 guys as I recall.

I'm sure you can find others that slept through high school science
and haven't a clue.

I think we should start a new thread and put this
product together.
What do you think?
Ken S. Tucker

That you are 12, maybe 13.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Jun 18, 2:01 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Jun 18, 11:12 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
I love it when great minds come together.
What do you think?
Ken S. Tucker
Ken, since you asked I think first and foremost that you have no
appreciation for sarcasm. Second, I think your helo wouldn't work for
way to many reasons to count.

I flew the prototypes they work!
Check out it out for yourself.
Hell, I'll even send you one.
Ken


Here's the prototype for a multi-tasking aircraft. It flies in prototype
but I doubt we will see it in full size production.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT60SkXN1UY

On Jun 18, 4:46*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Here's the prototype for a multi-tasking aircraft. It flies in prototype
but I doubt we will see it in full size production.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT60SkXN1UY- Hide quoted text -

Hah...nice video.

My first inclination of any design would be to reach for modeling
software first, something like SolidWorks. Any other approach is too
risky, IMO.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On Jun 18, 2:35 pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Ken S. Tucker wrote:

On Jun 18, 11:12 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
I love it when great minds come together.
Yeah, and electric/electronic chopper that can
sit in your backyard, taking up minimal space
that you fly with a flick of a switch quietly so the
old bag next door can't hear it over her vibrator.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the greater than an order of
magnitude improvements in batteries necessary to do this.

Going to hard to keep all that moving air quiet.

I'm thinking contra-rotating multiple (bi-plane or triplane)
helo blades for yaw control, and I'm still working on
pitch...easy to do, but's what's best??

If it is so easy, why do few have it?

It's in production.

I'm also lookin' at an emergency chute that can
pop off the top for a 1/2 assed decent, so we might
eliminate pitch control on the blades, and make it
cheaper and simpler, in case of failure, than having
to do reverse auto gyroration.

Deploying a chute through rotor blades is going to be interesting to
say the least.

It's patented. The chute is fired off the hub.

I bet we could form a team of fella's who could create
a Limited Liabilty Corporation. That's how Boeing began,
21 guys as I recall.

I'm sure you can find others that slept through high school science
and haven't a clue.

I'm ok with science, insight is needed.

I think we should start a new thread and put this
product together.
What do you think?
Ken S. Tucker

That you are 12, maybe 13.

LOL, I wish!
Ken

In rec.aviation.piloting Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Jun 18, 2:35 pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Ken S. Tucker wrote:

On Jun 18, 11:12 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
I love it when great minds come together.
Yeah, and electric/electronic chopper that can
sit in your backyard, taking up minimal space
that you fly with a flick of a switch quietly so the
old bag next door can't hear it over her vibrator.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the greater than an order of
magnitude improvements in batteries necessary to do this.

Going to hard to keep all that moving air quiet.

I'm thinking contra-rotating multiple (bi-plane or triplane)
helo blades for yaw control, and I'm still working on
pitch...easy to do, but's what's best??

If it is so easy, why do few have it?

It's in production.

So was "Howard the Duck" and the Yugo.

I'm also lookin' at an emergency chute that can
pop off the top for a 1/2 assed decent, so we might
eliminate pitch control on the blades, and make it
cheaper and simpler, in case of failure, than having
to do reverse auto gyroration.

Deploying a chute through rotor blades is going to be interesting to
say the least.

It's patented. The chute is fired off the hub.

Patents are meaningless as to the value of a concept.

I bet we could form a team of fella's who could create
a Limited Liabilty Corporation. That's how Boeing began,
21 guys as I recall.

I'm sure you can find others that slept through high school science
and haven't a clue.

I'm ok with science, insight is needed.

More like a set of eyeglasses.

I think we should start a new thread and put this
product together.
What do you think?
Ken S. Tucker

That you are 12, maybe 13.

LOL, I wish!

OK, 9 or may be 10?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.