He put a large tab on the outer trailing edge to correct a port low wing. Looks like he overdid it hence the new up deflection of the aileron to counteract. If he backs off the trim tab (or removes) the aileron should level.
I was with you all the way until the (1.327)2. Whilst we could argue about whether to square or some other number I thought instead to review the numbers on my plane:I took some notes in the DA42 (old Thielert model) about power settings for landing. Now I can fly them by feeling and don't need the values in the NG anymore. Note: the aircraft has FADEC and these values correspond roughly to thrust, hence drag.
Pattern speed (120kt), const. ALT:
Drag factor gear 86%-68%=18%. Percentual increase 1+(18%/55%)=1,327. Possible speed of the Raptor with retracted gear (1,327)²*110kt=194kt
- Clean config: 55%
- Flaps full: 68%
- Flaps+LDG gear: 86%
Sigh. _IF_ there were any main wing stalls going on (which there most certainly are not, unless PM has a different definition of stall than the aerodynamic community as a whole) then moving the CG forward would help to prevent main wing stalls. Aside from stability concerns, preventing main wing stall (deep stall) is the second (and possibly MORE important) reason for the rear CG limit location on canard type aircraft.In the latest episode at about 6:20 he describes how, in the first flight, the canard stalled right at rotation and continued to alternately stall along with the main wing stalling. But moving the cg forward fixes this.......and over to you in the booth, Marc......
But they were incorrect, as discussed previously. The motion of the plane was NOT what happens during a canard stall. I believe that they misjudged what they were seeing in the video.Mentioned by Velocity on the YouTube comments.
MAYBE the CG was too close to the NP - some folks are making that judgement based on a stabilized GoPro movie in a plane piloted by someone not familiar with flying canards and who was almost certainly inducing a fair bit of PIO's, which I see in MY plane when someone not familiar with canards flies it, and which I've tested to the limits of the performance envelope. I would not be categorical about the CG location, NP location, or the relation between the two - we are operating with almost zero actual information here. Moving the CG forward would certainly make the plane more stable in pitch, but it's not clear that it was unstable on the first flight.The CG was too close to neutral so the forward move tamed the PIO. He was above the normal 1g stall speed at all times.
See above. The stick movement would need not only to be rapid enough to occur faster than the inertia of the aircraft would allow the plane to move, but also large enough to actually cause an AOA change above the stall AOA. This did not happen - the elevator TE movements during the pitch oscillations seen in the first flight were minuscule - almost imperceptible. That's not causing canard stall, when 25% above the 1G stall speed.But stall nibbling can occur above stall speed with rapid stick movements. (stall is AOA not just speed)
Seems to me, and possibly others? that unless a new YT video is featured of the Raptors latest mods, then there is very little to comment on. Having followed progress with both interest and dismay for over 2 years its apparent that nothing anybody suggests will ever be implemented, so I've got to the point not to bother anymore. Seems the designer is using a meat thermo, if that's the case then the Raptor is definitely going to be 'rare' !!!! see what I did there, it's got that boring, I'm gone.