<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Nat:<br>
I agree with your postings. It may be possible to cure the tucking
problem by shifting the CG, but that also brings along it's owns set of
illnesses. I was just curious about Georgie's case, whether or not he
had shifted the CG and found any effect. I agree that, by curing the
tucking (Positive or negative) with a CG shift, that it may make the
airplane virtually unflyable in other, more frequently used, regimes.
(Such as straight and level!<span class="moz-smiley-s3"><span> ;-) </span></span>)<br>
Bill glaze<br>
<br>
Nat Penton wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid004701c5a023$db0bcb90$e291fea9@GREENROOM"
type="cite">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2722" name="GENERATOR">
<style></style>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Bill, some years back a friend of
mine was competently flying a west coast design with wing and stab on
the thrust line, O-O. He had to move the CG to 50% MAC to cure the
pitch up and the airplane only required about 1/4 inch up/dn elevator.
I notice he did not stay with the design !!</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">
Nat</font></div>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">-----
Original Message ----- </div>
<div
style="background: rgb(228, 228, 228) none repeat scroll 0%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"><b>From:</b>
<a title="billglaze@triad.rr.com"
href="mailto:billglaze@triad.rr.com">Bill Glaze</a> </div>
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"><b>To:</b>
<a title="discussion@nsrca.org" href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</a>
</div>
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"><b>Sent:</b>
Saturday, August 13, 2005 10:20 AM</div>
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"><b>Subject:</b>
Re: more on the cause of "adverse roll couple"</div>
<div><br>
</div>
Would a change in CG have any effect on the tucking? r did yu ever try
it? Just curious. Bill<br>
<br>
George Kennie wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid42FD3C09.B0F5B290@gis.net" type="cite">Really
can't remember, Bill, but I think it was around 35%.
<p>Bill Glaze wrote: </p>
<blockquote type="CITE"> Georgie: CG? Bill Glaze
<p>George Kennie wrote: </p>
<blockquote cite="mid42FB7D25.6A03EA5B@gis.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Yeah, and then there's my Pro's Acq that has the wing ,stab on the datum line
with everything at zero and it pitches to the belly at 20%. Go figure.
Bob Richards wrote:</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dean,
I agree with everything you said.
I have a couple of rather simplistic theories that
seem to work well when it comes to explaining
roll/pitch coupling. Take two airplanes with zero
dihedral, one a high wing and one a low wing. The high
wing will have proverse coupling, the low wing will
have adverse coupling. My theory is that the fuselage
will have high pressure on one side and low pressure
on the other side, when the rudder is deflected. Not
unlike a wing. :-) There will be a natural line of
separation close to the center of the fuselage (with
no wing or stab). If the wing is not centered in the
fuselage (close to this line of separation) there will
be a difference in pressure between the top and bottom
of the wing as a result, and will be opposite between
the left/right wing panels. This will result in a roll
coupling. Same goes for the stab location, a low stab
location will pitch to canopy, a high stab will pitch
away from the canopy. (And it will also have a small
affect on roll coupling). My Cap21 pitched horribly to
the belly in knife edge, took about 30% mix as I
recall. Not surprising since the stab was on top of
the fuse.
The real problem with using mix is that the required
mix is never linear. A small rudder deflection might
not need much mix %, but large rudder deflections can
make the plane really stupid. :-)
In my opinion, the wing/stab position and dihedral
have a much larger effect on coupling than the
vertical CG. Also, it is much easier/practical to
affect a change in the dihedral and stab location than
it is to significantly change the vertical CG
location. Think about it, if you lower the wing, you
have lowered the vertical CG which you would think
would cause proverse roll, but it usually (always?)
causes the opposite.
Bob R.
--- Dean Pappas <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:d.pappas@kodeos.com"><d.pappas@kodeos.com></a> wrote:</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Nat,
Just a further complication, that if I remember the
original E-mail, may be useful.
If your plane pitches to the belly AND rolls adverse
with rudder, or pitches to the canopy AND rolls
proverse, then it is possible and likely that you
have only one problem, and not two. If you fix the
pitching, then the roll may be reduced, or if you
stop the roll, the pitching may be reduced. In
general, if a rudder to aileron couple fixes things,
you will have less interesting behavior with rudder
corrections in looping maneuvers. This is because
most designs have an angle-of-attack sensitive
yaw-to-roll couple. That knowledge can save your
plane if you ever take off with the ailerons
disconnected: slow down, get the nose up, and turn
with the rudder. At high AOA, the plane will roll
like a high wing trainer (well sorta!)
Regards,
Dean</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/">http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
</a>To be removed from this list, go to <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm">http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
</a>and follow the instructions.
List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the list.</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/">http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
</a>To be removed from this list, go to <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm">http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
</a>and follow the instructions.
List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the list.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<hr> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.<br>
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.<br>
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.7/60 - Release Date: 7/28/2005<br>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
<hr size="4" width="90%">
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.7/60 - Release Date: 7/28/2005
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>