02.09.2015 Views

THE HISTORY OF V.A.R.M.S The Annual Diary 1990 - 2009

THE HISTORY OF V.A.R.M.S. The Annual Diary. 1990 - 2009

THE HISTORY OF V.A.R.M.S. The Annual Diary. 1990 - 2009

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

59<br />

much of the tail's effects are devoted to pitch, and how much to yaw. In general, a low aspect ratio<br />

wing will need a flatter tail angle (Just as a low aspect ratio wing needs less fin in a conventional<br />

tail), and a high aspect ratio wing will need a steeper tail dihedral.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re are a several different approaches to calculating the required tail dihedral, one based<br />

on constant control authority and the other on constant stability, with small differences between the<br />

angles they predict. I find the constant control authority method is a bit simpler, and also seems to<br />

give more reliable results in my experience (and this just happens to be an area where I do have a<br />

LOT of experience). Just divide the area of the equivalent conventional tail's fin + rudder by the<br />

area of its stab + elevator, then find the arctangent of the result. That angle will be the dihedral of<br />

each side of the V-tail, measured from the horizontal.<br />

If you want the included angle between the V-tail panels, just multiply the dihedral angle by<br />

two, then subtract the result from 180 degrees.<br />

(c) A T-tail requires less area as it is NORMALLY out of the slipstream of the wing ??<br />

Commonly believed, but rarely true, as least for models. In the vast majority of model<br />

applications, the stab of a T-tail has to be the same size as the equivalent conventional tail to have<br />

the same stability and control authority. In a few cases where it is different, it is usually a very<br />

minor difference, and not always in favour of the T-tail.<br />

(d) However - a T might be less forgiving in the stall as it is then in the LEE of (i.e. hidden from)<br />

the airstream as a result of its position in relation to the wing at that angle of attack. This is<br />

often true, for both models and full-scale aircraft. <strong>The</strong>re are a number of fatal accidents on record<br />

of T-tailed aircraft in flight tests that refused to recover from a deep-stall, and carried their crews<br />

into an early grave. However, any type of tail can have funny characteristics resulting from quirks<br />

of the overall aircraft design. All can be vulnerable to blanking by the wing. fuselage, or other<br />

parts of the airframe. Short-coupled and low-aspect ration designs seem to be especially sensitive<br />

to this. If your design has unusual proportions, be prepared to deal with some surprises during<br />

development testing.<br />

(e) Is the relevance of the tail (T, V, Conventional) more, less or irrelevant to the plane having<br />

ailerons ??<br />

No, an airplane can be weird, ungainly and/or cantankerous regardless of what type of tail<br />

it used, whether or not it has ailerons and/or flaps, or what sort of wing planform and arrangement<br />

it uses. That's one of the things that makes airplane design so "interesting: (although on occasion<br />

some other, less printable adjectives might come to mind!). Just remember, every time you change<br />

even the smallest detail anywhere in the design, it's likely to have "ripple effects' throughout the rest<br />

of the design.<br />

August 2000 - Australia and VARMS represented at the 2000 Electric World Championships in San<br />

Diego (U.S.A.) by Bill Hamilton, Manni Riederich and David Hobby - won by Urs Leodolder from<br />

Martin Weberschoeck. Bill and Manni placed 2nd & 3rd in Fun Scale at a prior event, the Electric<br />

Festival flying electric ducted-fan A4 Skyhawks.<br />

October 2000 Aspectivity 327 contained the following item which is an excellent way to include a<br />

NON-radio controlled glider:<br />

<strong>The</strong> Flyaway Chuckie.....<br />

Ever noticed how flyaway models are choosy where they land and are usually smarter than<br />

their owners? After a number of uneventful flights of about 45 - 50 seconds, a large, high<br />

performance free flight chuck glider built by Geoff Pentland cleared off from Brigg's Field on<br />

Saturday 12th August. It had been very still and seemed a low-risk day. Shortly after being hurled<br />

aloft, the tight circling chuckie hit a weak thermal, and in no time had cleared the two big gum trees<br />

north-west of the clubhouse.<br />

Two surprised VARMS observers called out to its pursuers to chase it north-east. Slowly<br />

drifting away at a considerable height now and still climbing, mild consternation then set in with<br />

Geoff and Jenny (spouse) having to take the car. Traffic now becomes a safety factor. Almost 5<br />

minutes to find a break to exit onto High Street Road! Know the feeling? Meanwhile, one cheeky

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!