Mechanics of Elevator Trim. In Detail.

The notion of first principles, like some of the conservation laws,
seems to be lost on Le Chaud and others. He calls himself an engineer,
but seems not very familiar with Newton, or concepts like energy
density when talking about a prime mover, or. . . but why go on?
Austin has its village idiot.

I am reminded of a derivation that was given in JIR (J. Irreproducible
Results, an outgrowth of the Worm Runners Digest -- points to anyone
who knows what worm runners were) in which a series of equations were
written, followed by a statement "Then magic happens", and then the
desired result.


On Jun 19, 1:05 am, wrote:
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.

On Jun 19, 7:26 am, wrote:
The notion of first principles, like some of the conservation laws,
seems to be lost on Le Chaud and others. He calls himself an engineer,
but seems not very familiar with Newton, or concepts like energy
density when talking about a prime mover, or. . . but why go on?
Austin has its village idiot.

Lots of guys like that. The idea that electronics can somehow
make an airplane lighter and faster and better, all at once, is just
an obsession with electronics and computers. The idea that electric
power is green is another falsehood; where does most electricity come
from? Hydroelectric dams (devastated valleys), coal (dirty), natural
gas (CO2 and an increasingly limited resource), nuclear (dangerous and
waste problems), and so on. Hydrogen fuel cells, even if they worked
well and were affordable, require hydrogen, which requires the
electrolysis of water, which needs vast amounts of electricity. Other
methods of storage involve heavy metals and their dangers. The idea
that a helicopter is easy to build (with biplane blades, yet, which
was tried in the early years of 'copters) just reveals that the writer
knows nothing of the problems that gyroscopic precession present to
all rotating components of the helicopter, to say nothing of the AOA
and airspeed variations of all rotor blades during flight. Helicopter
flight is appallingly complex and it's a wonder it happened so soon
after fixed-wing flight (35 years or so).

Dan

On Jun 19, 9:40*am, wrote:
On Jun 19, 7:26 am, wrote:

The notion of first principles, like some of the conservation laws,
seems to be lost on Le Chaud and others. He calls himself an engineer,
but seems not very familiar with Newton, or concepts like energy
density when talking about a prime mover, or. . . but why go on?
Austin has its village idiot.

* * *Lots of guys like that. The idea that electronics can somehow
make an airplane lighter and faster and better, all at once, is just
an obsession with electronics and computers.

This same statement could be made about the application of every new
way of doing things versus the old.

How could one say whether electronics would result in overall design
improvement if one does not yet know how the electronics would be
applied?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On Jun 19, 10:40 am, wrote:
On Jun 19, 7:26 am, wrote:

The notion of first principles, like some of the conservation laws,
seems to be lost on Le Chaud and others. He calls himself an engineer,
but seems not very familiar with Newton, or concepts like energy
density when talking about a prime mover, or. . . but why go on?
Austin has its village idiot.

Lots of guys like that. The idea that electronics can somehow
make an airplane lighter and faster and better, all at once, is just
an obsession with electronics and computers. The idea that electric
power is green is another falsehood; where does most electricity come
from? Hydroelectric dams (devastated valleys), coal (dirty), natural
gas (CO2 and an increasingly limited resource), nuclear (dangerous and
waste problems), and so on. Hydrogen fuel cells, even if they worked
well and were affordable, require hydrogen, which requires the
electrolysis of water, which needs vast amounts of electricity. Other
methods of storage involve heavy metals and their dangers. The idea
that a helicopter is easy to build (with biplane blades, yet, which
was tried in the early years of 'copters) just reveals that the writer
knows nothing of the problems that gyroscopic precession present to
all rotating components of the helicopter, to say nothing of the AOA
and airspeed variations of all rotor blades during flight. Helicopter
flight is appallingly complex and it's a wonder it happened so soon
after fixed-wing flight (35 years or so).

Dan
Here is a frightening thought. If Le Chaud is in fact an engineer,
someone is paying him money for his lack of knowledge of basics, like
the power demand to keep a something with a specific gravity greater
than its environment suspended there. Well, that may be second term
physics. Lift ferries indeed.

I wonder how long it would take me to understand his true worth -- I
do make mistakes in hiring, but rarely in discharging.

On Jun 19, 9:40*am, wrote:
On Jun 19, 7:26 am, wrote:

The notion of first principles, like some of the conservation laws,
seems to be lost on Le Chaud and others. He calls himself an engineer,
but seems not very familiar with Newton, or concepts like energy
density when talking about a prime mover, or. . . but why go on?
Austin has its village idiot.

* * *Lots of guys like that. The idea that electronics can somehow
make an airplane lighter and faster and better, all at once, is just
an obsession with electronics and computers.

There seem to be others obssessed:

"As the electronic era grew in the 1960s, so did the idea of aircraft
with electronic flight-control systems. Wires replacing mechanical
devices would give designers greater flexibility in configuration and
in the size and placement of components such as tail surfaces and
wings. A fly-by-wire system also would be smaller, more reliable, and
in military aircraft, much less vulnerable to battle damage. A fly-by-
wire aircraft would also be much more responsive to pilot control
inputs. The result would be more efficient, safer aircraft with
improved performance and design."

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Mov...FBW/index.html

Also, I have never seen a situation where previously-mechanical system
that wen electronic (and was designed by someone who knew what s/he
was doing), was discovered to be relatively deficiencient compared to
the mechanical method:

"...these new, lighter-weight, fly-by wire system are deficient. We
need to go back to bellcranks, cables, and pulleys to stay ahead of
technological advancement."

-Le Chauld Lapin-

On Jun 19, 9:20 am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 19, 9:40 am, wrote:

On Jun 19, 7:26 am, wrote:

The notion of first principles, like some of the conservation laws,
seems to be lost on Le Chaud and others. He calls himself an engineer,
but seems not very familiar with Newton, or concepts like energy
density when talking about a prime mover, or. . . but why go on?
Austin has its village idiot.

Lots of guys like that. The idea that electronics can somehow
make an airplane lighter and faster and better, all at once, is just
an obsession with electronics and computers.

There seem to be others obssessed:

"As the electronic era grew in the 1960s, so did the idea of aircraft
with electronic flight-control systems. Wires replacing mechanical
devices would give designers greater flexibility in configuration and
in the size and placement of components such as tail surfaces and
wings. A fly-by-wire system also would be smaller, more reliable, and
in military aircraft, much less vulnerable to battle damage. A fly-by-
wire aircraft would also be much more responsive to pilot control
inputs. The result would be more efficient, safer aircraft with
improved performance and design."

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Mov...FBW/index.html

Also, I have never seen a situation where previously-mechanical system
that wen electronic (and was designed by someone who knew what s/he
was doing), was discovered to be relatively deficiencient compared to
the mechanical method:

"...these new, lighter-weight, fly-by wire system are deficient. We
need to go back to bellcranks, cables, and pulleys to stay ahead of
technological advancement."
-Le Chauld Lapin-

Yup, electronics/electrical is the wave of the future,
and that's from a guy who prefers crank windows to
them thar fancy power windows in cars!
From satellite technology, to your hard-drive motors,
to auto focusing cameras...we're in the digital servo-
-age. May dinosaurs R.I.P.
Ken

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote

Yup, electronics/electrical is the wave of the future,
and that's from a guy who prefers crank windows to
them thar fancy power windows in cars!
From satellite technology, to your hard-drive motors,
to auto focusing cameras...we're in the digital servo-
-age. May dinosaurs R.I.P.
Ken

It will be difficult to compete with mechanical actuation as far as
reliability vs. cost in a product meant for the consumer market, and in a
critical application such as movement of control surfaces.

Satellite technology won't be cheap enough for GA, and I've had enough
hard-drive, camera, and consumer electronics problems to know I don't want
that level of reliability in an aircraft. If your camera refuses to focus
properly, nobody dies.

Our aircraft uses servos in the autopilot system. In the last 16 years
we've had both the pitch and trim servos fail. Consider the consequences of
that if the servos were the primary means of control.

On Jun 19, 1:15 pm, "BDS" wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote

Yup, electronics/electrical is the wave of the future,
and that's from a guy who prefers crank windows to
them thar fancy power windows in cars!
From satellite technology, to your hard-drive motors,
to auto focusing cameras...we're in the digital servo-
-age. May dinosaurs R.I.P.
Ken

It will be difficult to compete with mechanical actuation as far as
reliability vs. cost in a product meant for the consumer market, and in a
critical application such as movement of control surfaces.

Satellite technology won't be cheap enough for GA, and I've had enough
hard-drive, camera, and consumer electronics problems to know I don't want
that level of reliability in an aircraft. If your camera refuses to focus
properly, nobody dies.

Our aircraft uses servos in the autopilot system. In the last 16 years
we've had both the pitch and trim servos fail. Consider the consequences of
that if the servos were the primary means of control.

They are a long way from those kinds of improvements. I'd enjoy
hearing the answer to a problem as simple as this -- it's the kind of
thing an engineer would do to get a sense of the order of magnitude of
the problems (s)he might be facing.

Assume you're really really good and can construct your airplane in a
4 seat configuration with a gross weight of say 1500 pounds. If
someone doesn't like that number, chose a different one. Farther
assume you have a really clean airframe. Given all of that, how much
power would it take just to keep you aloft in 0.08 pounds per cubic
foot of air.

It would be interesting to see Le Chaud determine that from first
principles, or even guess at it looking at sailplane performance. But
that's real world, he'd much rather try to blow smoke.

On Jun 19, 12:15*pm, "BDS" wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote

Yup, electronics/electrical is the wave of the future,
and that's from a guy who prefers crank windows to
them thar fancy power windows in cars!
From satellite technology, to your hard-drive motors,
to auto focusing cameras...we're in the digital servo-
-age. May dinosaurs R.I.P.
Ken

It will be difficult to compete with mechanical actuation as far as
reliability vs. cost in a product meant for the consumer market, and in a
critical application such as movement of control surfaces.

I read this a lot in this group (and hear others say it), but I have
trouble believing it. Statements like this must be qualified, IMO. In
addition to what you just wrote, you could add...

"....if the means by which electro-mechanical actuation is done is in
an incremental, ad-hoc, fashion."

As I stated in another post, one could take any antiquated system that
would benefit from modern technology, say, a steam engine from 1850,
and claim: "The governor on this steam engine could benefit from the
use of electronic controls."

Now let's say for sake of argument that the cost of the steam engine
is $50,000US in todays dollars.

If the cost of the new-and-improved governor-assisting electronic
control with PDA is $1200US, the total cost of the machine will be
$51,200US.

See what is happening here? The gadget that was supposed to be so
wonderful just increased cost of aircraft by 2%. Not good.

Patchwork improvement is often a poor means of integrating new
technology into an old system. If a component is simply retrofitted,
then one should not expect anything more than that which happens when
one retrofits new components onto old systems.

A better alternative is to take a systemic approach. With the systemic
approach, gross changes are made, throughout the system, deliberately
and conscientiously from the outset. Then, certain hard questions need
no longer be asked:

Question: "This servo-motor is nice, but you still haven't said how do
you stop the XYZ from leaking?"
Answer: "The new system no longer uses an XYZ."

In any new system, there will be hundreds, if not thousands of
questions/answer pairs like these. If this principle is employed
consistently, the new system really will be new, and then the cost-
savings will be realized.

There will come, however, the problem of risk: the new system, being
new, will be unproven, so in all likelihood, several of the prototypes
will fail (crash). Not a problem. After all, crashing was how the
whole thing started in the first place. Since it is known in advance
that crashing is inevitable, it can be managed, meaning that it can be
regarded as a monetary cost.

The idea here is that the new technological components are not
inherently bad. It is their application that might bad, and this
application will vary from engineer to engineer, organization to
organization, industry to industry. Intellectual discipline and
willingness to let competence takes its proper place is essential.

Once that management has taken place, the end result will be a product
that possesses no more risk as any sosphisticated device that has the
potential to fail and result in loss of life. There are many such
devices, and they work just fine every day.

Satellite technology won't be cheap enough for GA, and I've had enough
hard-drive, camera, and consumer electronics problems to know I don't want
that level of reliability in an aircraft. *If your camera refuses to focus
properly, nobody dies.

In a few years, it will be possible to use ground-based digital radios
for even the highest-flying GA aircraft. Since commoditized
components are so cheap, redunancy can be employed throughout. Take
for example, the G1000. For the cost of synthetic-terrain upgrade, I
can drive 5km down the road and buy 25 fully-loaded PC's, each with
200GB hard disk, LCD monitor, 1GB RAM, keyboard, mouse, Ethernet, Wi-
Fi dongle (but not Wi-Max), FM radio, MP3 player (and practically any
other coding standard), DVD player (and burner), flight data recorder,
flight planner, uncommonly sophisticated flight calculator. Each one
of these PC's would cost roughly the same amount it cost of fill the
tank on some Cessna's. And all 25 PC's for only an upgrade.

I find it interesting that my source of this information implies that
Garmin is charging $10,000 for what is essentially a $45 product:

http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/a...-versus-garmin

Our aircraft uses servos in the autopilot system. *In the last 16 years
we've had both the pitch and trim servos fail. *Consider the consequences of
that if the servos were the primary means of control.

Servos are used in many applications, some of them borderline hostile
(certainly more hostile than Earth's atmosphere).

If the failure rate of electro-mechanical components in aviation is
significantly higher than the failure rate in other industries, the
aviation designer is mostly likely doing s/she should not be doing.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On Jun 19, 11:15 am, "BDS" wrote:

It will be difficult to compete with mechanical actuation as far as
reliability vs. cost in a product meant for the consumer market, and in a
critical application such as movement of control surfaces.

Our aircraft uses servos in the autopilot system. In the last 16 years
we've had both the pitch and trim servos fail. Consider the consequences of
that if the servos were the primary means of control.

Fly-by-wire makes sense in large airplanes or in agile
fighters. The lifting capacity of transports or fighters is an order
of magnitude higher than small airplanes because of much better power-
to-weight ratios, much higher airspeeds, and much more wing area. The
electronics to control those systems weigh every bit as much as the
electronics to control the systems in a small airplane; the only
difference is the size of the hydraulic actuators and pumps. In small
aircraft, where the ratio between stall speed and cruise speed might
be 2:1, maybe 3:1 max, instead of the 4:1 or much more in FBW system
aircraft, the extra weight makes no sense whatever. Just think of the
hydraulic pumps and their actuators (or bigger alternators and primary
servos). Lots and lots of weight. In a small two-place airplane that
has no more than a 600 pound useful load, they are simply not
welcome.
The distance between the pilot and control surfaces also makes
a difference, and the need for some sort of boost anyway in larger
airplanes means that FBW becomes more of a minor change rather than
the addition of a whole system.
But someone will do it for light aircraft, and they'll try
to sell it. It will be expensive (so it won't sell well), heavy (so
the utility we be gone), and will remove the pilot from the feel of
the air (and there's goes much of the fun). Kind of like putting anti-
skid brakes and power steering and an automatic transmission on an
Indy race car; it's just plain dumb. Might sell a few to people who
don't really want to do the flying. Couch potato pilots.
These ideas always seem to come from folks who don't have
licenses nor any experience with airplane construction. I've met them
many times, and instead of building a known, trustworthy aircraft
design for a first project, they get way out in left field somewhere
with their ideas and end up wasting years and a huge pile of money on
something that just refuses to work. A guy is Saskatchewan did this a
few years ago; designed and built an "inexpensive fighter" that could
be produced in large numbers for "national defense;" it used a crazy
stacked airfoil system and a 100-hp engine and prop, and wouldn't get
more than a foot off the ground no matter what. Even the anemic and
clunky and primitive Cessna 150 flies far better on the same engine.
Improvement, indeed. He kept trying and kept throwing money away.

Dan