On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Bill Swingle wrote: > >>does the 'good' outweigh the difficulty? > >I was hoping you wouldn't ask. I'm not qualified to give a rigorous answer. >But, here's my layman opinion: For most guys no. I don't think it's usually >worth doing it. Which is why much of the time a builder will just stick with >constant chord surfaces. It' tough to argue with the convenience of >commercially available materials. > >However, on a speed plane (depending on control surface rigidity) it can be >an important factor in avoiding flutter.
On an earlier plane, I had a problem with both flutter and a pronounced tip stall at full throw. I'm trying to fix that. A tapered aileron would seem to fix that. -J > > >>And, is the effect noticable? > >For most guys no. Personally, I like lots of roll authority and tend to over >size mine any way. But I don't fly speed planes so my sloppy building >doesn't risk flutter. > >The choice of control surface width is very complicated. But a ballpark >value is usually good enough to achieve decent performance. Which is why I >originally said 25%-30%. They're commonly used values that do fairly well. >To examine the subject more closely, we'll need to consult the likes of >Blaine, Joe, etc... > >Bill Swingle >Janesville, CA >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and >"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and >unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. > RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.
