Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Ailerons
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

yak52

Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Posts: 50

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:40 am Post subject: Ailerons

It has been stated:

 Just because cable tension is not an acceptable

      means of preventing  flutter in certified aircraft, does not mean that

      it does not work.  

 It should be noted that many certificated aircraft, including those flying in Great Britain, have ailerons wihout external mass balanced ailerons. These include Piper Cubs, Aeroncas and, I believe, Grumman Cheetahs and Tigers.

  It also should be noted that in no crash/incident reported to date did the aileron cables fail, only that owners failed to maintain the cable tension.

  [quote][b]

William Dominguez

Joined: 09 Apr 2008
Posts: 118

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:44 am Post subject: Ailerons

The way I understand it is that cable tension does work in preventing flutter, but relying in cable tension alone is not acceptable by the FAA because of the possibility of cable loosening up. This could be very critical if cables loosen up during the course of one flight, as already happened to a 601XL. 



As I say, this is the way I understand it. Meaning, I could be wrong and and would like to be clarified.



William Dominguez

Zodiac 601XL Plans

Miami Florida

http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom



--- On Tue, 3/17/09, roger lambert <n601ap(at)gmail.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

From: roger lambert <n601ap(at)gmail.com>

Subject: Ailerons

To: "zenith-list(at)matronics.com" <zenith-list(at)matronics.com>

Date:  Tuesday, March 17, 2009, 8:38 AM



It has been stated:

 Just because cable tension is not an acceptable

      means of preventing  flutter in certified aircraft, does not mean that

      it does not work.  

 It should be noted that many certificated aircraft, including those flying in Great Britain, have ailerons wihout external mass balanced ailerons. These include Piper Cubs, Aeroncas and, I believe, Grumman Cheetahs and Tigers.

  It also should be noted that in no crash/incident reported to date did the aileron cables fail, only that owners failed to maintain the cable tension.

   	  Quote: 	
		  http://www.matronics.co========================http://forums.          -

  --> 	


	
  [quote][b]

_________________
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom

Jeyoung65(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:33 am Post subject: Ailerons

My understanding of control surface flutter is it can be  caused by control surfaces than can move without input forces. If they move  upward due to ruff air they will then be forced downward due to the air load on  them. They are then forced up ect until an input force is applied to stop the  cycle. So be sure to check your cable tension and looseness of all  connection.  Jerry of Ga 

  

  In a message dated 3/17/2009 8:47:21 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  bill_dom(at)yahoo.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		                      The way I understand it is that cable tension does work          in preventing flutter, but relying in cable tension alone is not          acceptable by the FAA because of the possibility of cable loosening up.          This could be very critical if cables loosen up during the course of one          flight, as already happened to a 601XL. 



As I say, this is the          way I understand it. Meaning, I could be wrong and and would like to be          clarified.



William Dominguez

Zodiac 601XL Plans

Miami          Florida

http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom



--- On Tue,          3/17/09, roger lambert <n601ap(at)gmail.com> wrote:

          	  Quote: 	
		  

From:            roger lambert <n601ap(at)gmail.com>

Subject: Zenith-List:            Ailerons

To: "zenith-list(at)matronics.com"            <zenith-list(at)matronics.com>

Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2009,            8:38 AM



                      It has been stated:

           Just because cable tension is not an            acceptable

      means of preventing             flutter in certified aircraft, does not mean            that

      it does not work.             

 It should be noted that many certificated aircraft,            including those flying in Great Britain, have ailerons wihout external            mass balanced ailerons. These include Piper Cubs, Aeroncas and, I            believe, Grumman Cheetahs and Tigers.

           It also should be noted that in no crash/incident reported to            date did the aileron cables fail, only that owners failed to maintain            the cable tension.[/b]



	
[/b] 	  Quote: 	
		   	
	


 Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or less.

  [quote][b]

hills(at)sunflower.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:12 am Post subject: Ailerons

Well I have to wonder, why not just use Push rods instead of cables for the Ailerons? Then you never have to worry about cable slack.  

I have them on my HDS 601 and they work perfectly.  

   

Roger  

   

   

         

  

From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeyoung65(at)aol.com

 Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 10:31 AM

 To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Ailerons  

  

     

My understanding of control surface flutter is it can be caused by control surfaces than can move without input forces. If they move upward due to ruff air they will then be forced downward due to the air load on them. They are then forced up ect until an input force is applied to stop the cycle. So be sure to check your cable tension and looseness of all connection.  Jerry of Ga   

    

   

      

In a message dated 3/17/2009 8:47:21 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, bill_dom(at)yahoo.com writes:  

   	  Quote: 	
		            

The way I understand it is that cable tension does   work in preventing flutter, but relying in cable tension alone is not   acceptable by the FAA because of the possibility of cable loosening up. This   could be very critical if cables loosen up during the course of one flight,   as already happened to a 601XL. 

   

   As I say, this is the way I understand it. Meaning, I could be wrong and and   would like to be clarified.

   

   William Dominguez

   Zodiac 601XL Plans

 Miami Florida

   http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom

   

   --- On Tue, 3/17/09, roger lambert <n601ap(at)gmail.com>   wrote:   



   From: roger lambert <n601ap(at)gmail.com>

   Subject: Ailerons

   To: "zenith-list(at)matronics.com" <zenith-list(at)matronics.com>

   Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2009, 8:38 AM         

It has been stated:   

      

Just because cable tension is not an acceptable

         means of preventing  flutter in certified   aircraft, does not mean that

         it does not work.  

    It should be noted that many certificated aircraft, including those   flying in Great Britain,   have ailerons wihout external mass balanced ailerons. These include Piper   Cubs, Aeroncas and, I believe, Grumman Cheetahs and Tigers.   

      

It also should be noted that in no crash/incident   reported to date did the aileron cables fail, only that owners failed to   maintain the cable tension.[/url]   

   

   

          	  Quote: 	
		   	
	
  

    

       

  

Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? [url=http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001]Make dinner for $10 or less.  

   	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9 	  Quote: 	
		   	
0

        [quote][b]

pchap(at)primus.ca
Guest

Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:12 am Post subject: Ailerons

At 08:38 17-03-09, Roger wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		    It should be noted that many certificated aircraft, including 

 those flying in Great Britain, have ailerons wihout external mass 

 balanced ailerons. These include Piper Cubs, Aeroncas and, I 

 believe, Grumman Cheetahs and Tigers.

It also should be noted that in no crash/incident reported to date 

did the aileron cables fail, only that owners failed to maintain the 

cable tension.


	




Additional info:

- The Aeronca Champ:  Vne of 129 or 135 mph (I've seen both??)  -- 

significantly lower than 601's.

- The Grumman Tiger AA-5 does have an internal mass balance from the 

ailerons in the wingtip, as does even the early AA-1 (according to an 

illustrated parts manual online).



Nevertheless, it is still a little unclear at what speeds aircraft 

(certificated or not) do not have mass balanced ailerons.

Peter Chapman

Toronto, ON

zodierocket(at)hsfx.ca
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 3:37 am Post subject: Ailerons

Problem is that in the XL the span for a push rod is quite large and you have travel in a vertical as well as a horizontal range. With such a run, to make a system that can handle the load that the cables are capable of you would need to have a complicated bearing arrangement to support the push rod in both movements. I imagine that the system can be done safely with a complete change in which the way the controls presently work, but just adding a rod with a few fittings would not be able to handle the design loads that the cables can handle for a safe conversion.  

     

Mark Townsend  Alma, Ontario  

Zodiac CH650 C-GOXL, CH701 Rotax 912,  

STOL CH750 Just started  

www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com/ www.Osprey2.com  

  

--

japhillipsga(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:50 am Post subject: Ailerons

Roger, I like Mark. He's a great guy and he cooks good hamburgers, but my opinion on this subject is just different than his. Whether the cables are "stronger" than push rods is not the issue. They may or may not be, but it does not matter because either system far exceeds the utility stress the XL air frame, wings and HS will endure. The wings and HS will have already failed and ripped clear and hit the ground long before either the push rod or cables fail. The reason for rods over cable is aileron flutter and harmonic dynamic resonance dampening. If the issue is mere strength why not install 1/4 inch cables or 1/2 inch cables as opposed to 1/8th? They certainly are "stronger" than the ones ZAC has on their plans. What may be of concern is that pointing at the product and saying "there may be a better way" stimulates anxiety even more that having "mysterious" crashes where the wings fail for no particular observed reason. My XL and I s  urvived unexpected and unwelcome aileron flutter with cables. It maybe just me a another fellow who ever survived to tell about it. I built, own and fly a Zenith 601 XL that I am very proud of and believe it (with modifications) to be the safest XL flying. Anybody interested is welcome to come, see and compair. Best regards, Bill of Georgia 

 

 --

Jeyoung65(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:53 am Post subject: Ailerons

Bill, Just a question for me, did you install push-pull rods for the rudder  

or elevator? I believe the big flutter problems is related to loose  control. 

This can be worn bolts, worn bearings  or loose bolts as well as  low cable 

tension. As Mr. Townsend said a long rod can be subject to bending-  not a big 

problem and easy to correct with thicker walls or larger OD  tubes.  Jerry of GA

 

 

In a message dated 3/18/2009 10:55:00 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  

japhillipsga(at)aol.com writes:



Roger, I  like Mark. He's a great guy and he cooks good hamburgers, but my 

opinion  on this subject is just different than his. Whether the cables are  

"stronger" than push rods is not the issue. They may or may not be, but it  does 

not matter because either system far exceeds the utility stress the XL  air 

frame, wings and HS will endure. The wings and HS will have  already failed and 

ripped clear and hit the ground long before either the push  rod or cables 

fail. The reason for rods over cable is aileron flutter and  harmonic dynamic 

resonance dampening. If the issue is mere strength why not  install 1/4 inch 

cables or 1/2 inch cables as opposed to 1/8th? They certainly  are "stronger" than 

the ones ZAC has on their plans. What may be of concern is  that pointing at 

the product and saying "there may be a better  way" stimulates anxiety even 

more that having "mysterious" crashes where  the wings fail for no particular 

observed reason. My XL and I s urvived  unexpected and unwelcome aileron flutter 

with cables. It maybe just me a  another fellow who ever survived to tell 

about it. I built, own and fly a  Zenith 601 XL that I am very proud of and 

believe it (with modifications) to  be the safest XL flying. Anybody interested is 

welcome to come, see and  compair. Best regards, Bill of Georgia

paulrod36(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 2:45 pm Post subject: Ailerons

<?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->  About a week ago I dropped in at my friendly Airparts, and looked through  their stock, thinking in terms of pushpull tubes for my ailerons. I pulled out  some tubes ranging from 1-1/4 down to 3/4, and then looked at SQUARE tubing as  well. Pullin almost 12 feet of tube out of the racks, none of them were  particularly easy to bend by hand, and, at the roughly 7 feet from bellcrank to  fuselage skin, not of them had any appreciable sag. I suppose there might be  some harmonics in a piece that long, but I very seriously doubt you'd get a tube  to bend under aileron pressure until very near mach one - in which case you then  have a very different concern.  So, the plan is-- one length of pushpull  rod from bellcrank to fuselage skin, a 6 to 8 inch inner splice held by a couple  of AN=3 bolts, and an approx 21 inch tube from control stick to the other end of  the inner splice. And, if I can lay hands on the appropriate size aluminum bar,  and well-centered drilled and tapped holes in the bar, threadad ball  rod  ends to allow for adjustment, with locknuts to keep them that way.  (And,  square tubing even looks cool.)

  

 Paul Rodriguez

 [quote]   ---

jaybannist(at)cs.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 3:32 pm Post subject: Ailerons

Paul,

 

 Please don't get carried away with armchair engineering.  Remember, control cables only have to resist tension forces.  A control rod or tube must resist compression also.  The capacity of tubing in compression is based on the loads being axial, with NO eccentricity.  ANY eccentricity introduces bending which can lead to buckling failure. The capacity is dependent on the strength of the material, the area of the section, the length, the radius of gyration (r) and the slenderness ratio (length over r)  Also you must take into account the loss of sectional area when you drill for fasteners. That can weaken it as a stiff structural member. If you aren't capable of doing these calculations, by all means - get qualified help.  This is just to critical to "eyeball".

 

 Jay Bannister  

 

   

 

   

 

 --

JAPhillipsGA(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:29 pm Post subject: Ailerons

Jerry of Georgia, where are you? I'm Bill of Georgia. Call me  and I'll be 

happy and glad to show you my XL, what I have done in detail and let  you fly 

it, if you know how to fly. Call 478-731-9678 during the day. Best  regards, 

Bill of Georgia 

 

 

In a message dated 3/18/2009 12:54:35 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  

Jeyoung65(at)aol.com writes:



Bill, Just a question for me, did you install push-pull rods for the  rudder 

or elevator? I believe the big flutter problems is related to  loose control. 

This can be worn bolts, worn bearings  or loose bolts as  well as low cable 

tension. As Mr. Townsend said a long rod can be subject to  bending- not a big 

problem and easy to correct with thicker walls or larger OD  tubes.  Jerry of GA

 

 

In a message dated 3/18/2009 10:55:00 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  

japhillipsga(at)aol.com writes:



Roger,  I like Mark. He's a great guy and he cooks good hamburgers, but  my 

opinion on this subject is just different than his. Whether the  cables are 

"stronger" than push rods is not the issue. They may or may not  be, but it does 

not matter because either system far exceeds the utility  stress the XL air 

frame, wings and HS will endure. The wings and  HS will have already failed and 

ripped clear and hit the ground long before  either the push rod or cables 

fail. The reason for rods over cable is  aileron flutter and harmonic dynamic 

resonance dampening. If the issue  is mere strength why not install 1/4 inch 

cables or 1/2 inch cables as  opposed to 1/8th? They certainly are "stronger" than 

the ones ZAC has on  their plans. What may be of concern is that pointing at 

the product and  saying "there may be a better way" stimulates anxiety even 

more that  having "mysterious" crashes where the wings fail for no particular 

observed  reason. My XL and I s urvived unexpected and unwelcome aileron flutter 

with  cables. It maybe just me a another fellow who ever survived to tell  

about it. I built, own and fly a Zenith 601 XL that I am very proud of  and 

believe it (with modifications) to be the safest XL flying. Anybody  interested is 

welcome to come, see and compair. Best regards, Bill of  Georgia

JAPhillipsGA(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:37 pm Post subject: Ailerons

Paul, what your describing has been done and the photo  sequence of how is somewhere out there on the web. Mark Townsend put it on  601.org some time back, but then he removed it for what ever reason. I'm tired  of beating this horse so maybe somebody else can help you with Phase I & II  of the XL Push Rod saga. Best of luck, Bill

  

  In a message dated 3/18/2009 6:47:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  paulrod36(at)msn.com writes:

 [quote]      About a week ago I dropped in at my friendly Airparts, and looked through    their stock, thinking in terms of pushpull tubes for my ailerons. I pulled out    some tubes ranging from 1-1/4 down to 3/4, and then looked at SQUARE tubing as    well. Pullin almost 12 feet of tube out of the racks, none of them were    particularly easy to bend by hand, and, at the roughly 7 feet from bellcrank    to fuselage skin, not of them had any appreciable sag. I suppose there might    be some harmonics in a piece that long, but I very seriously doubt you'd get a    tube to bend under aileron pressure until very near mach one - in which case    you then have a very different concern.  So, the plan is-- one length of    pushpull rod from bellcrank to fuselage skin, a 6 to 8 inch inner splice held    by a couple of AN=3 bolts, and an approx 21 inch tube from control stick to    the other end of the inner splice. And, if I can lay hands on the appropriate    size aluminum bar, and well-centered drilled and tapped holes in the bar,    threadad ball  rod ends to allow for adjustment, with locknuts to keep    them that way.  (And, square tubing even looks cool.)

    

   Paul Rodriguez

   [quote]     ---

hills(at)sunflower.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:18 pm Post subject: Ailerons

Paul;  

   

Airparts?  Do you mean “the” Airparts store in Kansas City?  

I’m in Lawrence.  

   

Roger  

   

   

         

  

From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of paulrod36(at)msn.com

 Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 5:42 PM

 To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Ailerons  

  

       

About a week ago I dropped in at my friendly Airparts, and looked through their stock, thinking in terms of pushpull tubes for my ailerons. I pulled out some tubes ranging from 1-1/4 down to 3/4, and then looked at SQUARE tubing as well. Pullin almost 12 feet of tube out of the racks, none of them were particularly easy to bend by hand, and, at the roughly 7 feet from bellcrank to fuselage skin, not of them had any appreciable sag. I suppose there might be some harmonics in a piece that long, but I very seriously doubt you'd get a tube to bend under aileron pressure until very near mach one - in which case you then have a very different concern.  So, the plan is-- one length of pushpull rod from bellcrank to fuselage skin, a 6 to 8 inch inner splice held by a couple of AN=3 bolts, and an approx 21 inch tube from control stick to the other end of the inner splice. And, if I can lay hands on the appropriate size aluminum bar, and well-centered drilled and tapped holes in the bar, threadad ball  rod ends to allow for adjustment, with locknuts to keep them that way.  (And, square tubing even looks cool.)  

    

   

    

Paul Rodriguez  

  [quote]    

---

hills(at)sunflower.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:22 pm Post subject: Ailerons

Mark;  

   

Ok, forget the Aileron push rods… What about balancing the Ailerons?  My Sonerai had a simple way to balance the ailerons. The Ailerons run the full length of the  

wings right out to the tips. At the aileron tips, the tip itself extends forward of the aileron and tucks into the fiber glass wing tip itself, this forward tip is where the counterbrace mass is located.  Simple and works. Could it be used on the 601XL?    

   

Roger  

         

  

From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ZodieRocket

 Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:36 AM

 To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Ailerons  

  

   

Problem is that in the XL the span for a push rod is quite large and you have travel in a vertical as well as a horizontal range. With such a run, to make a system that can handle the load that the cables are capable of you would need to have a complicated bearing arrangement to support the push rod in both movements. I imagine that the system can be done safely with a complete change in which the way the controls presently work, but just adding a rod with a few fittings would not be able to handle the design loads that the cables can handle for a safe conversion.  

     

Mark Townsend  Alma, Ontario  

Zodiac CH650 C-GOXL, CH701 Rotax 912,  

STOL CH750 Just started  

www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com/ www.Osprey2.com  

  

--

K Dilks

Joined: 22 Sep 2008
Posts: 108
Location: UK

Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:49 am Post subject: Re: Ailerons

OK this is how I see this.

 The real issue weather an aileron needs balancing is the design speed and the design of the aileron its self.

 Low speed plane ( below 100mph) can getaway without either dynamic ( balance weights) nor aerodynamic balance. These designs have a hinge at the very front of the aileron(XL style)

 Next up the speed ladder is no dynamic balancing but with the hinge point offset so as to act with some aerodynamic balance( plus a small mass balance due to the mass foward of the hinge line. 

 After this is the full mass balance ( but not necessary 100% of aileron mass ) with carefully positioned hinge points to give more aerodynamic balance.IE look at a fully aerobatic aileron, some having spades to give more aerodynamic balance.

 Last is hydraulic assistance etc etc



  One thing that strikes me is that even if the cable  tension is correct they then presume that the blob in the cock pit is holding the stick tight. 

  Tight control cables do not cure a potential flutter issue, they just delay its onset at best. The issue is what actually causes the flutter in the first place and this is corrected by the correct engineering of mass balance, aerodynamic balance and the aileron  hinge point. Obviously profile shape will enter the equation but this is the basics.

  I am not saying that for sure the XL needs balanced  controles but as they would eliminate a potential serious problem and possible make for nice controle harmony why not fit them? In the UK there attitude I feel is correct if they have found a resonable chance of flutter occuring then somthning should be done.

 Normally aircraft are over engineered in aspects like this to give a reasonable saftey factor but this seems marginal at best on the XL.



Sorry for my monolog but had to air my thoughts



Kev     Brit living Austria ....FAA A+P

_________________
Back home .................

daveaustin2(at)primus.ca
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:51 am Post subject: Ailerons

Has anybody done any work on the size of the mass  balancer?  From previous building I'm aware that it does not have to be  fully balanced to get enough benefit to prevent flutter.  There has to be a  graph of "percent of aileron weight" to "flutter inhibiting ability"  somewhere.

 Dave Austin  601HDS -  912

    [quote][b]

d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 11:26 am Post subject: Ailerons

While I fully endorse the notion of pilots of "experimental" aircraft trying 

to design/discuss/improve their aircraft, most of these discussed solutions 

appear to assume that somebody actually knows that 1) there actually is a 

problem, and 2) the ailerons are the source of said problem. I'm not any 

more sure of that than I am of the assertion by the faithful that "There 

absolutely cannot be any problem because the design hath been decreed from 

on high by CH". Now if the discussion were to centered more on the idea 

that:  "Balanced ailerons have been shown to be a good idea in general. Lets 

find a good way to apply that idea and improve our aircraft." it would look 

better. Because at the end of the day nobody here has any data that this is 

THE solution to the question of why do bad things appear to be happening.



Do Not Archive

paulrod36(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:55 pm Post subject: Ailerons

<?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->  About a week ago I dropped in at my friendly Airparts, and looked through  their stock, thinking in terms of pushpull tubes for my ailerons. I pulled out  some tubes ranging from 1-1/4 down to 3/4, and then looked at SQUARE tubing as  well. Pullin almost 12 feet of tube out of the racks, none of them were  particularly easy to bend by hand, and, at the roughly 7 feet from bellcrank to  fuselage skin, not of them had any appreciable sag. I suppose there might be  some harmonics in a piece that long, but I very seriously doubt you'd get a tube  to bend under aileron pressure until very near mach one - in which case you then  have a very different concern.  So, the plan is-- one length of pushpull  rod from bellcrank to fuselage skin, a 6 to 8 inch inner splice held by a couple  of AN=3 bolts, and an approx 21 inch tube from control stick to the other end of  the inner splice. And, if I can lay hands on the appropriate size aluminum bar,  and well-centered drilled and tapped holes in the bar, threadad ball  rod  ends to allow for adjustment, with locknuts to keep them that way.  (And,  square tubing even looks cool.)

  

 Paul Rodriguez

 [quote]   ---

arno7452(at)bellsouth.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:01 am Post subject: Ailerons

Hey Paul,

 Sounds like a plan!  Remember, bigger is  better.

  

 do not archive

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

 [quote]   ---

paulrod36(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:49 pm Post subject: Ailerons

<?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->  Yeah, this is getting old. How about one more foray into  wildness?  We develop small two -way hydraulic cylinders, masters at  the controls, slave cylinders at the control surfaces, use 1/4" inch plastic  tubing to push red fluid back and forth, and step up beyond mere mechanicals  altogether. Plasma-drive engines come later.

  

 Paul R

 [quote]   ---

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum