• 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!

Frise Aileron Design

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

DaveD

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
375
Location
Perth, Western Australia
I'm looking at using Frise ailerons on my Project-Ex design and on reading Hoerner's Fluid Dynamic Lift, I've come up with some quieries:

Slotted1.jpgFrise1.jpgFrise2.jpg

The pic on the left is actually a "slotted" type which appears to just be a Frise Aileron but tweaked to encourage flow through the slot... So does this mean that a 'real' Frise aileron should be designed to try and limit the flow through the slot as much as possible? from the 'real' Frise aileron pic (on the right) it looks like you would get some flow through the slot with the aileron deflected up (i.e. anticlockwise), but much less with it deflected down - does this help by adding to the drag of an up deflected aileron? Has anyone seen a Frise Aileron with a sealed gap?


What's everyones opinion on the relative merits of the middle and right pictures compared? Having the surface pivot in line with the wing is probably easier to construct, but what is the effect of the gap in the top surface? Would you get a standing vortex in the 'hole' energising the boundary layer and reducing separation on the control surface... or is that just wishful thinking?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top