• Welcome aboard HomebuiltAirplanes.com, your destination for connecting with a thriving community of more than 10,000 active members, all passionate about home-built aviation. Dive into our comprehensive repository of knowledge, exchange technical insights, arrange get-togethers, and trade aircrafts/parts with like-minded enthusiasts. Unearth a wide-ranging collection of general and kit plane aviation subjects, enriched with engaging imagery, in-depth technical manuals, and rare archives.

    For a nominal fee of $99.99/year or $12.99/month, you can immerse yourself in this dynamic community and unparalleled treasure-trove of aviation knowledge.

    Embark on your journey now!

    Click Here to Become a Premium Member and Experience Homebuilt Airplanes to the Fullest!

The Stelzer Wing Suspension for Improved Ride Quality in Turbulence

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

aaprobert

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
11
Location
Troy, Ohio
In a 1928 US patent, reissued in 1931, William Stelzer revealed a concept for a wing suspension that would do for airplanes what your car’s suspension does, which is to smooth the ride over a bumpy road. It involves basically a wing hinged at the front (like a freewing, but further forward), and suspended by springs or bungees with vibration dampers (shock absorbers).

Given the collective experience since then with free-wing designs that have the hinge carefully placed at a reflexed wing’s center of lift, I would think that Stelzer’s idea would have merit. While freewings were designed to be stall-proof as the primary objective, they did prove to have the turbulence-absorbing qualities that Stelzer sought. However, where the freewing is essentially a flying wing with limited max AOA and max coefficient of lift, the Stelzer wing would not have that drawback. It could be fully stalled provided the suspension was stiff enough. Also, the Stelzer wing would not require added weight to balance the wing at the hinge line.

The idea has me intrigued, and I have modified an electric radio-controlled model airplane to prove the Stelzer concept. I have, however, not incorporated any damper as I do not see the need for that. In fact, I think any damper between the wing and fuselage would be counterproductive to the goal of smoothing the ride. Since freewings have flown without damping, I think that damping may not be necessary.

I have flown my model once so far and it seems to work just fine. I have pictures and on-board video, which I will post on YouTube as soon as I figure out how. It also has a data-logger with accelerometer. On the first excursion out to the flying field, the recorded data didn’t really show much improvement in G levels, but then I did not really do a good controlled experiment. Perhaps there wasn’t enough natural turbulence (and too much pilot-induced turbulence) that day. Since then, snow on the ground here in Ohio has put a damper on my data collecting. Hopefully, this spring I will be able to get it flown on some good blustery days and get some good results. Until then, I have been working on modifying a larger model airplane for the same purpose.

Does anyone know of any reasons why Stelzer’s idea wouldn’t work? It would seem to be a great advantage to a producer of light single-engine airplanes to be able to sell an airplane that would not knock you around on a typical summer afternoon at low altitude. If your name is Jack Pelton, and you are looking for a Cirrus Killer, take note. ;)

Andrew Probert
Troy, Ohio
 

Attachments

  • Stelzer's Patent.doc
    483 KB · Views: 262
Back
Top