Do you want this big green box to go away? Well here's how...

Click here for full update

Wildcat! photo archives restored.

Click here for full update

Donors can now disable ads.

Click here for instructions

Add yourself to the user map.

Click here for instructions

[rebel-builders] Elevator deflection angle

Converted from Wildcat! database. (read only)
kpierson

[rebel-builders] Elevator deflection angle

Post by kpierson » Sun Feb 19, 2012 6:31 pm

Recently while trying to figure out the thrust angle for a motor mount
I measured the horizontal stabilitor and found that it was 1.5* NOSE UP
when the airframe is level. Are all Rebels built that way, or was mine
put together wrong?



On 8/22/2010 8:39 PM, skidaddy20000@hotmail.com wrote to rebel-builders-
d:

->
->
-> This topic has had me thinking. I've summarized my thoughts below
->
-> and toss them out for consideration and comment.
->
->
->
-> 1) There must be some angle between the horizontal stabilizer and the
elevator
->
-> at which the air flow separates from the under surface of the elevator.
Like when a wing stalls.
->
->
->
-> 2) When the air flow separates there must be a significant decrease in the
downward "lift" generated
->
-> by the horizontal stabilizer/elevator assembly.
->
->
->
-> 3) If it happens in flight, this will cause the nose to pitch down and the
angle of attack of the
->
-> wings will decrease dramatically.
->
->
->
-> 4) This change in the angle of attack of the wings will cause a sudden loss
of lift, and altitude, unless the
->
-> airspeed is immediately increased to compensate.
->
->
->
-> 5) If in slow flight, close to the ground, as in landing, the plane may drop
in heavily.
->
->
->
-> 6) We should know that angle, and set our control stops so it cannot be
exceded.
->
->
->
-> 7) Vortex generators may increase the angle by a few degrees but there
will still be a finite point
->
-> beyond which further elevating the elevator will result in less nose up
force rather than more.
->
->
->
-> Any thoughts?
->
->
->
-> John
->
-> Toronto
->
->
->
-> PS One last thought:
->
->
->
-> 8) My Rebel gets 32 degrees up elevator. I wonder if the reason for its
beautiful, easily controlled stall
->
-> is that the wings don't actually stall, the tail does. This drops the nose, I
push the stick forward, re-establishing
->
-> attached airflow over the tail, and fly on, thinking wow, only lost 50 feet,
and no wing drop.
->




-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Ron Shannon

[rebel-builders] Elevator deflection angle

Post by Ron Shannon » Sun Feb 19, 2012 6:31 pm

The manual calls for 1 deg. up angle of incidence, so you're probably in the
ballpark. Some have used less.

Ron
N254MR

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 1:01 PM, <kpierson@dcsol.com> wrote:
Recently while trying to figure out the thrust angle for a motor mount
I measured the horizontal stabilitor and found that it was 1.5* NOSE UP
when the airframe is level. Are all Rebels built that way, or was mine
put together wrong?



-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

kpierson

[rebel-builders] Elevator deflection angle

Post by kpierson » Sun Feb 19, 2012 6:31 pm

Ron: Thank you for your response to my inquiry, although I'm glad
to receive that information, but to have a stabilizer with a nose up
attitude goes aginst everything that I have ever learned about
stabilizers, but I'll work with it.

Keith P.

On 8/23/2010 3:48 PM, rshannon@cruzcom.com wrote to rebel-builders:

-> The manual calls for 1 deg. up angle of incidence, so you're probably in the
-> ballpark. Some have used less.
->
-> Ron
-> N254MR
->
-> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 1:01 PM, <kpierson@dcsol.com> wrote:
->
-> > Recently while trying to figure out the thrust angle for a motor mount
-> > I measured the horizontal stabilitor and found that it was 1.5* NOSE UP
-> > when the airframe is level. Are all Rebels built that way, or was mine
-> > put together wrong?
-> >
-> >
->




-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Ken

[rebel-builders] Elevator deflection angle

Post by Ken » Sun Feb 19, 2012 6:31 pm

When I queried this, some clever person here reminded us that in the
downwash from the wing, one degree up on the stab was still likely
providing down force on the stab.

I believe I set around .6 up on my stab. For my particular airframe
(wing cuff and soob engine) at 80 knot economy cruise, I would set it to
zero if rebuilding.

Ken

kpierson@dcsol.com wrote:
Ron: Thank you for your response to my inquiry, although I'm glad
to receive that information, but to have a stabilizer with a nose up
attitude goes aginst everything that I have ever learned about
stabilizers, but I'll work with it.

Keith P.

On 8/23/2010 3:48 PM, rshannon@cruzcom.com wrote to rebel-builders:

-> The manual calls for 1 deg. up angle of incidence, so you're probably in the
-> ballpark. Some have used less.
->
-> Ron
-> N254MR
-

-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Ron Shannon

[rebel-builders] Elevator deflection angle

Post by Ron Shannon » Sun Feb 19, 2012 6:31 pm

You're right, it is counterintuitive, given the role the stabilizer is
supposed to play. Whether it's the wing downwash, or unique prop corkscrew
effect, or whatever -- or whether necessary at all (e.g., preference from
Ken and others for zero incidence) -- it does seem to work reasonably well
for the Rebel.

Whatever the rationale, as was discussed in an earlier post on this topic,
the down force of the stabilizer is wasted energy, insofar as it contributes
to drag but not lift. With that in mind, minimizing stabilizer downward
force is one key to speed optimization (drag reduction) which is why the
Reno racers are always trying to fly at the edge of controllable aft CG.

Ron


On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:10 PM, <kpierson@dcsol.com> wrote:
Ron: Thank you for your response to my inquiry, although I'm glad
to receive that information, but to have a stabilizer with a nose up
attitude goes aginst everything that I have ever learned about
stabilizers, but I'll work with it.

Keith P.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------


Locked