Enclosing an Evans Volksplane VP-2

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

FritzW

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
3,886
Location
Las Cruces, NM
...what's the story behind this? I presume it has the same area. Does the narrower chord reduce stick pressure?
Hi Ron,

I don't know if you've flown a VP, but control harmony between the stabilator and ailerons is not as good as it could be. The stab is light, crisp and solid but the ailerons are a little heavy and the roll rate is a little slow and sluggish. History has proven that this isn't a problem, just an area that could be improved.

It's safe to say the aspect ratio of the VP's ailerons is probably too low. It's even out of the "Approximate Proportions for Best Results" range in Bud Evan's Evans Lightplane Designer's Hanbook. ...it's way out in fact. The "fattest" ailerons recommended are 20% of the wing chord and 48% of the simispan. The VP-1's ailerons are 31% of the chord and 39% of the simispan. But it's probably the simplest way to do ailerons and simplicity was what he was after.

By widening the ailerons one bay and shortening the chord by 5" you'd get an aileron that was about 21% of the wing chord and 50% of the simispan, just off the high AR end of the "recommended" chart.
 

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
7,292
Location
World traveler

FritzW

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
3,886
Location
Las Cruces, NM
Moving the hinge aft (and widening the span to keep the area the same) is what #12 is all about.
 

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
7,292
Location
World traveler
Sorry, maybe I misunderstood, but I thought that TF was suggesting maintaining the aileron dimensions and proportions as per the original design but moving the hinge further back to create a balanced aileron surface, either symmetrical ailerons on cantilever hinges or maybe Frise ailerons.

cantihinge5.gif bgjbrok-albums-constructies-picture165590-frise-aileron.jpg

Either would require changing the aileron hinge design, however. I think you could make cantilever ailerons by reversing the eyebolts in the ailerons, lengthening the eyebolt in the rear spar and passing it through a hole in the aileron spar to move the axis of rotation back, but then the pins would be inside the aileron and hard to inspect.

49.jpg

Alternatively, if going with up-only aileron rigging, maybe something like this would work to relieve the stick forces, as I mused in that up-only aileron thread.

22211d1359459015-up-only-ailerons-sketch.jpg

Perhaps the simplest solution would be to add some sort of aileron spade to a reinforced aileron center rib, which could also serve to mount the mass balance in order to clean up the wingtips.

P1020088.JPG
 

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
7,292
Location
World traveler
Okay, I get it now. Or as we used to say in the 70's "I'm picking up what your laying down".

The aileron spade might be the easiest thing to try. Here's a good thread on a neat VP aileron spade.
http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/aircraft-design-aerodynamics-new-technology/4666-aileron-spade.html
Yup, saw that one, wasn't too sure about the elephant ear approach, wingtips can be unpredictable places. I wonder if anyone has any design guidelines for aileron spades? That said, I'd rather have a less drastic solution, likely some variation of a Frise aileron within the stock aileron cutouts. I'd love some suggestions on an easy way to do that, ideally something from an aircraft of similar characteristics.
 

Turd Ferguson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
5,041
Location
Upper midwest in a house
Sorry, maybe I misunderstood, but I thought that TF was suggesting maintaining the aileron dimensions and proportions as per the original design but moving the hinge further back
Correct. Same ailerons, different hinge location. Aerobatic guys do this to lighten up aileron forces and it works are well as spades.
 

Riggerrob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
1,405
Location
Canada
Sleekest canopy I ever saw on a VP-1 was a NACA pattern similar to a Turner T-40 single-seater. The big advantage of the NACA pattern is that all the clear parts are flat-wrapped.
 

Riggerrob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
1,405
Location
Canada
There a two advantages to bulged canopy: smoother airflow over the tail surfaces and more room for crew.
Chief advantage of a bulged canopy is more elbow room ... like the aluminum elbow bulges on the Bolkow Junior. But you want most of the bulge down at elbow level, more like a Feischler Storche.
 

Riggerrob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
1,405
Location
Canada
I like the idea of Frise ailerons.
Does anyone know how to attach piano hinges to a stick and fabric wing?
 

Turd Ferguson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
5,041
Location
Upper midwest in a house
With a false spar like Fritz's narrow chord aileron in post #16?
Fritz's concept drawing is dead on and would probably make for a nice handling airplane. The only downside is it would have to be done during build or major rebuild. I would think an existing airplane could be modified with different hinges and get some improvement but I could be completely wrong about that. That rear spar may not like longer hinges twisting on it.
 

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
7,292
Location
World traveler
Looking at the relevant plans page below, I does seem that it would be possible to make lighter ailerons as follows:


• Use about a 2” longer eye bolt in the rear wing spar, 1” extending from the wing to move the aileron hinge point aft the same amount and 1” projecting back into the wing through a flat-topped triangular bracing block to give more “bury” to the bolt.

• Shorten the aileron ribs one inch with same flat bottom profile and a slightly steeper upper surface to the trailing edge.

• Add as large-radiused a quarter round fairing to the forward upper face of the aileron spar as aileron movement will allow, effectively creating a thickened aileron as is sometimes used to energize the boundary layer and increase control surface responsiveness on RC models and full-size aircraft.

• Add a matching fairing to the rear face of the rear wing spar.

• Do the same to the lower face of the aileron spar and drill the eyebolts in that spar slightly higher to allow aileron to project slightly below the wing profile for the same boundary layer effect;

OR

Attach as long an aluminum angle to the lower face of the aileron spar as aileron movement will allow to act as an aerodynamic Frise balance.

• With both of these, it might be possible to move the aileron balance weight to the front of the fairing or angle in the form of a spanwise thin lead rod or bar to eliminate the overhanging mass balance altogether and go will full-chord wingtips.​
 

Attachments

FritzW

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
3,886
Location
Las Cruces, NM
Do you have a "flat-topped triangular bracing block" on the rear face of the wing spar also? ...something to go under the head of the eyebolt.
 

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
7,292
Location
World traveler
Do you have a "flat-topped triangular bracing block" on the rear face of the wing spar also? ...something to go under the head of the eyebolt.
I didn't but probably should have. I was trying not to have too many or too wide gaps in the aileron leading edge fairings. Of course, all this speculation on modifications is great fun, but at this rate only my grandkids would get to fly it.

I should probably take my own advice about "sticking to the original bare-bones, open-cockpit design and rejecting any modification that would add rather than subtract weight." In that case I should just build it exactly as designed except for cutting weight (Oratex fabric, Nikasil cylinders, lighter wheels, drilling lightening holes wherever I can safely get away with it) and just go flying, heavy ailerons and all! ;-)
 

FritzW

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
3,886
Location
Las Cruces, NM
...I'd be nervous about some of the more aggressive structural changes
I just re-read this thread after following the "VP-2 Kit" thread. I must have missed your comment here. Which changes make you nervous?

In some of the renderings I posted above some of the plywood was set to transparent so the giblets would show. I just looked at the firewall rendering in the top image and the fact that what you see is only the inner core isn't obvious.

As far as I can tell none of the changes I suggested would lower the design limits.
 

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
7,292
Location
World traveler
Don't take it personally, Fritz, I just don't have the engineering knowledge or math to know whether or not cutting away so much of the firewall core or reducing plywood skin thicknesses here and there would have a significant impact on strength, ditto the move to a wooden anti-servo tab without reengineeering the whole stabilator. Lightening the seat and seat support, going with the lightest possible covering, maybe using a fiberglass tailwheel spring, things like that I am confident will not have an impact on anything critical. For my own VP-2 project (so far only in my head) I would probably dream about lots of mods and changes and in the end mostly save weight by omission and/or spending money for the lightest plywood, using spruce where pine would do (but not replacing douglas fir, which is there for strentgh), etc.
 
2
Top