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
|
|||
|
|||
Mass Balancing explanation request.
Could someone explain the idea, in semi layman's terms, why it's important, how it's done, what could be experienced if the balancing were out of whack, and if it is something that could be checked yourself with a procedural guide...
I have a full flying elevator. I'm not experiencing any problems, just a little fuzzy on this.... Thanks.... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Mass Balancing explanation request.
On Jul 15, 2:38*pm, POPS wrote:
Could someone explain the idea, in semi layman's *terms, why it's important, how it's done, what could be experienced if the balancing were out of whack, and if it is something that could be checked yourself with a procedural guide... I have a full flying elevator. *I'm not experiencing any problems, just a little fuzzy on thiSs.... Thanks.... -- POPS the not so simple answer is "it depends"... You will notice some classic aircraft (cubs, Taylorcraft etc) do not have either mass or aerodynamic balances. On my own design however, I was very particular about mass bala Elevators, as out of all the controe one that will kill you the quickest! The question whether you need it or not depends onlevators? how are the elevators actuated? are you likely to be putting large elevator inputs in at high energy levels? Lower performance aircraft with a narrow speed range are unlikely to hit the flutter range for any length of time, so mass balancing is of less importance. Larger elevators increase the effects of flutter, a d tend to be more prone to it and, especially if the chord is quite wide, will need quite a lot of weight or a long moment arm to balance correctly. If the balance is not accurate and still behind the the hinge, it will reduce the flutter effect, but not eliminate it - essentially it makes the elevator behave as if the chord is smaller. the actuation method is quite important - I use a heavy push - pull cable on my elevators, and this has a certain amount of inherant damping effect from the cable friction. Conventional cables may in some circumstances allow a bit of movement and even resonate to amplify flutter tendencies. Pushrods are more solid, but also can have a lot less system friction, so it depends on the installation. Powered flight controls are non - reversible (the movement of the surface doesnt get fed back into the system) so are generally resistant to flutter, but I'm guessing not many homebuilts have fully powered elevators!. I'd say, If in doubt, balance them as close to neutral as you can - it gives piece of mind if nothing else. http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?...e-for-Elevator |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mass Balancing explanation request.
There is an excellent video (on youtube) from the akafliegs showing low
speed flutter on a DG where the mass balance had been reduced on the ailerons for experimental demonstration. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQI3AWpTWhM Not quite. The entire wing was re-engineered for reduced stiffness (stretched to 17m), then overloaded with water to increase mass, thus allowing the entire wings to flutter at lower speeds for controlled study of aero-elastic flutter (bending of structure, not control surface flutter). They did it with the ailerons locked, to achieve a limited oscillation to keep the ship in one piece, and to my knowledge the ailerons were normally balanced. Below is a copypasta of a synopsis: -p -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A flutter test with the DG-300/17 of the DLR Braunschweig: FLUTTER "Der heiligen DG" Here you can download a spectacular video showing a Flutter Test, something you normally do not see. We are lucky to have pilots who will risk such potentially dangerous tests to give us the opportunity the better understand the Phenomena of Flutter. The following information is important to be read to understand this video with the fluttering wing on a DG-300/17: ---------------------------------------------------- Dear Mr. Weber, this DG-300/17 is a Research Plane, in comparison to the factory DG-300 is it a plane on which the wingspan was increased from 15m to 17m. The additional wingspan was added towards the wing root. The filmed flutter with limited amplitude only occurred with a high water ballast. The too large water tanks contained more water than the allowed amount. The flutter tendency with increasing amount of water was known based on flatter calculation and static flutter tests by the DLR Institut for Aero-elastic. During these tests a small reduction within a limited speed range was discovered. The observed flutter oscillation during this experiment of the glider in actual flight gave us the opportunity, to prove the results of the theoretical methods used. Of course it goes without saying that such high risk flight tests could only be planned and carried out by highly experienced specialists of the DLR Braunschweig. To obtain the airworthiness certificate the water ballast was reduced to such an amount that for the normal use of this plane, for research purposes within the DLR and at the yearly IDAflieg comparison glider performance program, such Flutter cannot occur. The film shows the flutter occurring at an airspeed between 140 and 150 km/hr during which the anti-symmetric wing bending and rotation momentum of the aileron are involved. By fastening the controls a non-linear reaction occurs , which develops a flutter with limited amplitude. Because of this, an overload and breakup of the plane does not occur. When the airspeed by pulling on the stick, without hindering the sidewards movements of the stick, is reduced, the flutter oscillations will stop, but only when an appreciably slower airspeed is reached. This speed is the actual flutter airspeed of the plane. Flutter will start, when this airspeed is exceeded and the right disturbance influences the plane at this point. Please Note: All planes having an airworthiness certificate have gone through extensive static oscillation tests and flutter calculations in addition to a flight test program during which they have been checked for critical flutter behavior. Within approved operation field and its limitations as shown in the flight handbook one can be assured that no aero-elastic instabilities/flutter will occur. Jan Schwochow Flugabteilung des DLR (Deutsches Zentrum fuer Luft und Raumfahrt) Braunschweig mit technisch/wissenschaftlicher Unterstützung des Instituts für Aeroelastik des DLR in Göttingen -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Mass Balancing explanation request.
On Sunday, July 15, 2012 2:38:47 PM UTC-7, POPS wrote:
Could someone explain the idea, in semi layman's terms, why it's important, how it's done, what could be experienced if the balancing were out of whack, and if it is something that could be checked yourself with a procedural guide... I have a full flying elevator. I'm not experiencing any problems, just a little fuzzy on this.... Thanks.... -- POPS On Sunday, July 15, 2012 2:38:47 PM UTC-7, POPS wrote: Could someone explain the idea, in semi layman's terms, why it's important, how it's done, what could be experienced if the balancing were out of whack, and if it is something that could be checked yourself with a procedural guide... I have a full flying elevator. I'm not experiencing any problems, just a little fuzzy on this.... Thanks.... -- POPS On Sunday, July 15, 2012 2:38:47 PM UTC-7, POPS wrote: Could someone explain the idea, in semi layman's terms, why it's important, how it's done, what could be experienced if the balancing were out of whack, and if it is something that could be checked yourself with a procedural guide... I have a full flying elevator. I'm not experiencing any problems, just a little fuzzy on this.... Thanks.... -- POPS On Sunday, July 15, 2012 2:38:47 PM UTC-7, POPS wrote: Could someone explain the idea, in semi layman's terms, why it's important, how it's done, what could be experienced if the balancing were out of whack, and if it is something that could be checked yourself with a procedural guide... I have a full flying elevator. I'm not experiencing any problems, just a little fuzzy on this.... Thanks.... Pops, Without the physics, mass balance is used to prevent control surface flutter. Flutter was a problem with the Janus C elevator, and the solution was a technical bulletin requiring installation of a mass balance. Really good tight linkages can prevent the onset of flutter, as well as keeping the surface 'loaded'. Jim Wynhoff |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Mass Balancing explanation request.
I think you are largely right.
Yes - this was a fixed control test. But, as I understand it - The ailerons were not fixed - the stick was prevented from moving side to side during the test. The flaps & Ailerons still fluttered - you can see the port surfaces lift above the neutral if you watch in slow motion. And yes - this is harmonic aeroelastic wing flutter not control surface induced. However it is the same principle really, harmonic motion induced by the interaction of airflow and inertia. Here - the wing can be thought of as a plate hinged around the main spar. In this case adding the additional water ballast caused the inertial energy to be high enough to overcome the torsional stiffness of the wing - which was extended to reduce the stiffness and presumably lower the frequency. Interestingly the test resulted in some painful and presumably superfluous regulation - all EAS22 compliant gliders have stiffer controls with greater mass balance. There was a discussion on the DG1000 design where they were forced to redesign controls to comply. Interesting aside - I understand one of the mechanisms the designers have used to increase aeroelastic flutter speed on those high aspect ratio wings is to introduce the multi trapezoidal leading edges. I believe Schempp-hirth started this. Basically - look at an older design like an ASW20 in a high load situation the wingtip has substantial vertical displacement. It appears the wing is flexing to high Angle of attack on the outboard panels. Possibly this is caused by a combination of the rotational drag force from winglets as well as the aerodynamic load induced bending. The straight leading edge means that the centre of pressure on the wing remains ahead of the main spar all the way to the wingtip - at high load this tends to rotate the weakest (torsionally) part of the wing to higher AoA than desired. On the polyhedral designs the aerofoil and structure is effectively swept back - neutralising this rotational force, by putting the centre of pressure behind the (projected) spar. In this case high load tends to reduce the AoA at the tip relative to the rest of the structure, transferring load inboard. (positive and negative load would have the same effect) Result is less bending of tips at high speed - up and down, So less probability of flutter. Sensible? On 2012/07/16 6:05 PM, sisu1a wrote: There is an excellent video (on youtube) from the akafliegs showing low speed flutter on a DG where the mass balance had been reduced on the ailerons for experimental demonstration. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQI3AWpTWhM Not quite. The entire wing was re-engineered for reduced stiffness (stretched to 17m), then overloaded with water to increase mass, thus allowing the entire wings to flutter at lower speeds for controlled study of aero-elastic flutter (bending of structure, not control surface flutter). They did it with the ailerons locked, to achieve a limited oscillation to keep the ship in one piece, and to my knowledge the ailerons were normally balanced. Below is a copypasta of a synopsis: -p -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A flutter test with the DG-300/17 of the DLR Braunschweig: FLUTTER "Der heiligen DG" Here you can download a spectacular video showing a Flutter Test, something you normally do not see. We are lucky to have pilots who will risk such potentially dangerous tests to give us the opportunity the better understand the Phenomena of Flutter. The following information is important to be read to understand this video with the fluttering wing on a DG-300/17: ---------------------------------------------------- Dear Mr. Weber, this DG-300/17 is a Research Plane, in comparison to the factory DG-300 is it a plane on which the wingspan was increased from 15m to 17m. The additional wingspan was added towards the wing root. The filmed flutter with limited amplitude only occurred with a high water ballast. The too large water tanks contained more water than the allowed amount. The flutter tendency with increasing amount of water was known based on flatter calculation and static flutter tests by the DLR Institut for Aero-elastic. During these tests a small reduction within a limited speed range was discovered. The observed flutter oscillation during this experiment of the glider in actual flight gave us the opportunity, to prove the results of the theoretical methods used. Of course it goes without saying that such high risk flight tests could only be planned and carried out by highly experienced specialists of the DLR Braunschweig. To obtain the airworthiness certificate the water ballast was reduced to such an amount that for the normal use of this plane, for research purposes within the DLR and at the yearly IDAflieg comparison glider performance program, such Flutter cannot occur. The film shows the flutter occurring at an airspeed between 140 and 150 km/hr during which the anti-symmetric wing bending and rotation momentum of the aileron are involved. By fastening the controls a non-linear reaction occurs , which develops a flutter with limited amplitude. Because of this, an overload and breakup of the plane does not occur. When the airspeed by pulling on the stick, without hindering the sidewards movements of the stick, is reduced, the flutter oscillations will stop, but only when an appreciably slower airspeed is reached. This speed is the actual flutter airspeed of the plane. Flutter will start, when this airspeed is exceeded and the right disturbance influences the plane at this point. Please Note: All planes having an airworthiness certificate have gone through extensive static oscillation tests and flutter calculations in addition to a flight test program during which they have been checked for critical flutter behavior. Within approved operation field and its limitations as shown in the flight handbook one can be assured that no aero-elastic instabilities/flutter will occur. Jan Schwochow Flugabteilung des DLR (Deutsches Zentrum fuer Luft und Raumfahrt) Braunschweig mit technisch/wissenschaftlicher Unterstützung des Instituts für Aeroelastik des DLR in Göttingen -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Bruce Greeff T59D #1771 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Ok, I think I have it now.... M-B normally good.. flutter definitely bad...nice flutter video too...
Thanks you ya-all! Quote:
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Mass Balancing explanation request.
On 7/16/2012 11:11 PM, BruceGreeff wrote:
Basically - look at an older design like an ASW20 in a high load situation the wingtip has substantial vertical displacement. It appears the wing is flexing to high Angle of attack on the outboard panels. Possibly this is caused by a combination of the rotational drag force from winglets as well as the aerodynamic load induced bending. The straight leading edge means that the centre of pressure on the wing remains ahead of the main spar all the way to the wingtip - at high load this tends to rotate the weakest (torsionally) part of the wing to higher AoA than desired. I think you are making unwarranted assumptions: * that Schleicher did not make the ASW 20 wing torsionally stiff enough to avoid twisting; in fact, it had plenty of glass fiber in the skins (the part of the wing that gives it torsional stiffness - the spar is mostly for bending loads) to do just that. * That the ASW 20 had winglets - it did not * That the outer part of the wing is is the weakest torsionally; even if it is, it is also the portion with the least torsional load on it Modern two seaters often have the wing swept forward until about midspan, which contradicts your claim. The basic claim that the trapezoidal wings are a way to deal with flutter might be right (I have not seen this claim before - references?), but to claim wings without it are inadequate to meet their design requirements is unsupported. There are several ways to increase flutter speeds, even with straight leading edges, and designers used them as needed. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me) - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Mass Balancing explanation request.
On Jul 16, 11:11*pm, BruceGreeff wrote:
Basically - look at an older design like an ASW20 in a high load situation the wingtip has substantial vertical displacement. It appears the wing is flexing to high Angle of attack on the outboard panels. Possibly this is caused by a combination of the rotational drag force from winglets as well as the aerodynamic load induced bending. Evaluating sectional angle of incidence from a photo or video is a very difficult proposition with many confounding factors. I'd want to see reference posts secured to the wing before I would try to draw any conclusions. The straight leading edge means that the centre of pressure on the wing remains ahead of the main spar all the way to the wingtip - at high load this tends to rotate the weakest (torsionally) part of the wing to higher AoA than desired. "Center of Pressure" is a rather arbitrary concept mosty used in elementary aerodynamics and then abandoned. It is more useful to discuss the forces on a wing section with coefficients of lift and drag and pitching moment. On the polyhedral designs the aerofoil and structure is effectively swept back... Except, of course, on those polyhedral designs where the wing is swept forward. Thanks, Bob K. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Mass Balancing explanation request.
It's all very complicated, but I am sure of three things.
1- there are others who know more about this than I do. 2 - Over simplification leads to problems. 3 - Angle of Attack can be and has been accurately measured in flight, in the design of winglets for a couple of gliders. In one case there was indication of rotation under load - not conjecture. Again - since they were only measuring actual angle of attack at specific span points, it is impossible to say what the exact cause was. Would it be better to say that the end result of forces acting on any section of a wing resolve into two elements. One bending moment/force that will have a chordwise displacement and an angle (probably not exactly 90 degrees) to the chord line, or zero lift chord line? Secondly there will be a rotational moment, similarly at some, probably different displacement along the same chosen line. And further that these two origin displacements will move relative to the structure and relative to eachother - depending on free stream velocity, density, angle of attack, airfoil shape, contamination, turbulence (how many parameters do we want to consider). Effectively, how hard the wing is working. The resultant force will be a single, constantly varying vector which due to it's sense, origin and magnitude will constantly induce a varying tendency to deform the section of wing. Which it will achieve to a degree that depends on the origin, magnitude and direction of the vector, and 3D stiffness in the section under consideration. Pictures are easier - but is that a reasonable attempt? Cheers Bruce On 2012/07/18 5:07 PM, Bob Kuykendall wrote: On Jul 16, 11:11 pm, BruceGreeff wrote: Basically - look at an older design like an ASW20 in a high load situation the wingtip has substantial vertical displacement. It appears the wing is flexing to high Angle of attack on the outboard panels. Possibly this is caused by a combination of the rotational drag force from winglets as well as the aerodynamic load induced bending. Evaluating sectional angle of incidence from a photo or video is a very difficult proposition with many confounding factors. I'd want to see reference posts secured to the wing before I would try to draw any conclusions. The straight leading edge means that the centre of pressure on the wing remains ahead of the main spar all the way to the wingtip - at high load this tends to rotate the weakest (torsionally) part of the wing to higher AoA than desired. "Center of Pressure" is a rather arbitrary concept mosty used in elementary aerodynamics and then abandoned. It is more useful to discuss the forces on a wing section with coefficients of lift and drag and pitching moment. On the polyhedral designs the aerofoil and structure is effectively swept back... Except, of course, on those polyhedral designs where the wing is swept forward. Thanks, Bob K. -- Bruce Greeff T59D #1771 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Mass Balancing explanation request.
Concerning how controls surfaces are hinged to allow for mass balancing:
How are the ailerons balanced on the Grob Speed (dis)Astir where the aileron hinge is a flexible section of the upper wing skin? Balance weight somewhere down the line in the control system? WB |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Explanation please; Figure 4-42, 43.14-1B | mhorowit | Home Built | 4 | August 29th 07 02:35 PM |
I think I found an explanation of MX | AustinMN | Piloting | 3 | April 26th 07 05:48 PM |
A & P in western Mass? | orange | Owning | 1 | September 27th 06 10:46 AM |
An Explanation? | Mike Kanze | Naval Aviation | 0 | June 29th 06 09:27 PM |
balancing act | Stuart & Kathryn Fields | Rotorcraft | 10 | June 1st 06 01:42 AM |