Decalage angle

Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by Eugene, May 29, 2017.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Apr 20, 2019 #821

    Eugene

    Eugene

    Eugene

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    120
    Location:
    Merrill, Wisconsin, USA
    So, first flight this morning I did with CG at 30.7%. Perfect day with no wind at all. Rotation was pretty heavy on the stick with forward CG but after that everything went back to normal. Level flight was like on rails. Didn't pool to the right or left and hold trimmed altitude rock solid. Airplane was flying hands-free!!! GPS speed test 4-direction at 3000 ft was 87 MPH at 5400 RPM. I found myself thinking that I really like my little flying machine. Sure, would be nice to get a little faster, but when airplane flies perfect like that, then you start thinking that all it needs really only drag reduction with engine cowling and so on.

    So, I landed, removed 45 lb from the front and went for 2nd flight with CG at about 34.4%. Nose was much lighter during rotation, but immediately during climb I was sensing difficulty trimming for same speed. It feels like pretty windy day with updrafts and downdrafts and you end up compensating with stick all the time to make airplane to do what you want. Level flight was not any different. No more hands-free anymore. Absolutely impossible to trim for altitude hold and constant speed. Airplane starts ballooning up for 5-6 seconds by 300 feet which resulting in dropping RPM. Then by itself starts descending with engine RPM going into red zone for another 300 feet or so. In addition to that if you don't compensate with your hand it will drop the wing and start entering into spiral. GPS speed test was much harder to do and as far as I can tell speed stays the same.

    I made a conclusion that I will be flying with ballast and removing it every time if I end up going with a passenger.


    Question I have, is why CG movement by only 3-4% have such a dramatic effect? Is this because my horizontal tail to small?

    fullsizeoutput_16d0.jpeg
     
  2. Apr 20, 2019 #822

    BJC

    BJC

    BJC

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    9,084
    Likes Received:
    5,896
    Location:
    97FL, Florida, USA
    Eugene:

    In the photo, it looks like the weights are not securely fastened in place.

    Please fly only with the weights securely fastened in place.


    BJC
     
    birdus likes this.
  3. Apr 20, 2019 #823

    Eugene

    Eugene

    Eugene

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    120
    Location:
    Merrill, Wisconsin, USA
    Yes, I will need to find better way, easy removable and locking in place ballast. Thank you!
     
  4. Apr 21, 2019 #824

    TFF

    TFF

    TFF

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,291
    Likes Received:
    3,103
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    The closer you get to the neutral point the more sensitive it will get. Sounds like you are on the verge of tail heavy. Percent of CG is design dependent. Forward CG for the Wittman Tailwind is 17% if memory is close. Good CG range is where you can fly by yourself, OK and then add a passenger, OK. You may like the way it handles; it’s what aerobatic pilots do when setting up their planes. If you do plan to fly ballasted, it does need to be solidly locked down for many reasons. I do have a friend who ballasts his RV8 to make it not nose heavy.
     
  5. Apr 21, 2019 #825

    Eugene

    Eugene

    Eugene

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    120
    Location:
    Merrill, Wisconsin, USA
    Not sure if ballast will be my long term solution. I will probably do 2° positive wing swept next winter. I did this ones before when I was removing negative swept last winter. CG moved forward by 1.5% and airplane was flying much better after that. So, I can do it again.

    Here is picture from this morning with CG at 30.7%.
    IMG_2434.jpg
     
  6. May 5, 2019 #826

    Eugene

    Eugene

    Eugene

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    120
    Location:
    Merrill, Wisconsin, USA
    Here is another attempt to increase horizontal tail effectiveness with very little improvement. CG during test flight with 50 lb. ballast was at about 32%. hWoCl1NBQPOsJKACfCbiCQ.jpg fullsizeoutput_16e7.jpeg fullsizeoutput_16e6.jpeg fullsizeoutput_16e5.jpeg fullsizeoutput_16e4.jpeg
     
  7. May 5, 2019 #827

    proppastie

    proppastie

    proppastie

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,588
    Likes Received:
    1,026
    Location:
    NJ
    You keep adding weight to the tail, a little weight way back there is worth lots of ballast up front. Might want to rethink the whole tail thing and work on the weight and balance thing.

    Your ballast could be less if it was farther forward, and there was less tail weight.
     
  8. May 5, 2019 #828

    Eugene

    Eugene

    Eugene

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    120
    Location:
    Merrill, Wisconsin, USA
    Weight on the tail can be compensated with positive wing wing swept. On this airplane 1°positive swept = 2% CG shift forward. It's not a problem. For experiment sake ballast can be used to get CG in to safe zone ~28 - 32% or so.

    Problem is to determine what to do to tail, that is simply to small for the job.
     
  9. May 5, 2019 #829

    proppastie

    proppastie

    proppastie

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,588
    Likes Received:
    1,026
    Location:
    NJ
    have you tried the original tail with 25-30% CG?....I would think extending/enlarging the cockpit to allow single pilot to move forward the 24" required might be easier than sweeping the wings forward. That way moving the seat back for two people will be easy
     
  10. May 5, 2019 #830

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    11,523
    Likes Received:
    2,141
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    Why are the vertical plates installed? Was there a directional stability issue?
     
  11. May 6, 2019 #831

    Eugene

    Eugene

    Eugene

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    120
    Location:
    Merrill, Wisconsin, USA
    Okay, since nothing really worked, I will remove everything that I did and reinstall cables just like original design. This time around I am planing to increase horizontal tail by 20% by installing simple aluminum 4" wide extension.

    Vertical plates installed on Seamax as well. It was someone's recommendation , that didn't do anything for me.


    fullsizeoutput_16e9.jpeg
     
  12. May 9, 2019 #832

    Eugene

    Eugene

    Eugene

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    120
    Location:
    Merrill, Wisconsin, USA
    From Peter Garrison - " The flow over the aft portion of the fuselage is separated. This has the effect of immersing the stabilizer in a turbulent wake and reduces its effectiveness."


    Looking at this statement I am thinking that my 20% area increase for horizontal tail should be done with increasing its span. Like on picture below. Reason my diagonal wings didn't do much, because they were positioned right in the middle of turbulent wake.

    All new stab and elevator will be made of coarse. I am not increasing span of the old tail. Don't worry.

    fullsizeoutput_16ea.jpeg
     
  13. May 13, 2019 #833

    Eugene

    Eugene

    Eugene

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    120
    Location:
    Merrill, Wisconsin, USA
    Here is correct position for horizontal tail on pusher aircraft

    Screen Shot 2019-05-12 at 22.09.39.png Screen Shot 2019-05-12 at 22.06.43.png
     
    birdus likes this.
  14. May 19, 2019 #834

    Eugene

    Eugene

    Eugene

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    120
    Location:
    Merrill, Wisconsin, USA
    All done and ready for test flight. Will do weight and balance before I go. Total additional weight is about 6 lb. About 2 lb less then my composite diagonal wings.

    fullsizeoutput_16f7.jpeg fullsizeoutput_16f6.jpeg 8mZI7WE6SKiYkfwiP9hg3g.jpg %rCI7fcWTsWl8LGyxJWwHQ.jpg
     
  15. May 19, 2019 #835

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,742
    Likes Received:
    344
    Location:
    Everywhere USA
    I have not had time to read the whole 40 pages, but how is your prop? If you can reach max RPM sitting still on the ground then its WAY too low of an angle.

    The prop should be set to an angle that bogs the motor when sitting still, it should not be able to reach full RPM unless the aircraft is moving at takeoff speed or more.

    Years ago with my Cessna I did this and was astonished to find that it improved my climb and top speed by around 15 knots. Was hitting 136 knots and climbing around 90. I would take off and fly at 500 feet until it reached full RPM and then pull up to climb further. With the engine at full RPM and high pitch prop the thing performed FAR better. And I did not notice any real issues with takeoff. It had slightly slower roll at the beginning, but acceleration after RPM increased was much better and made up for it.

    If the pitch is too low the engine hits max RPM at much too low speed. It wastes the power.
     
  16. May 19, 2019 #836

    BJC

    BJC

    BJC

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    9,084
    Likes Received:
    5,896
    Location:
    97FL, Florida, USA
    Did you re-balance the elevators?


    BJC
     
  17. May 19, 2019 #837

    Eugene

    Eugene

    Eugene

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    120
    Location:
    Merrill, Wisconsin, USA
    Recommendation for 912 engine from Rotax community is to get to your normal altitude and have WOT at 5600-5650 rpm in level flight. This is how they recommend to set your propeller. And this is what I did.

    This engines are not limited to 75% continues power. You can cruise between 5000-5500 rpm all day long and 5800 rpm only for 5 minutes.
     
  18. May 19, 2019 #838

    Eugene

    Eugene

    Eugene

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    120
    Location:
    Merrill, Wisconsin, USA

    No, I didn't. I was told that below 200 km/hr we don't need to worry about it at all. Some Kitfoxes flying without them faster then I do.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2019
  19. May 19, 2019 #839

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Doggzilla

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,742
    Likes Received:
    344
    Location:
    Everywhere USA
    Okay, this is 100% your problem with top speed then. I'm not sure why they told you that but it's not accurate.

    Using that technique it is not possible to know if your pitch is high enough. You can be well below the proper setting and not even know.

    If it can reach full RPM while sitting still the prop pitch is too low and it will greatly reduce your top speed.

    It should slightly bog down while sitting completely still, but free up as you start moving.

    Try it. You will not be disappointed.
     
  20. May 19, 2019 #840

    Eugene

    Eugene

    Eugene

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2017
    Messages:
    658
    Likes Received:
    120
    Location:
    Merrill, Wisconsin, USA

Share This Page

arrow_white