Hi everybody
I would appreciate if you could give me some hints regarding the tail design.
1. Horizontal Tail Aspect Ratio
According to Roncz the horizontal tail aspect ratio should be at least half of that of the wing. It is an important issue for me because if I follow that approach I have to build detachable tail surfaces as I am aiming for 8-8,5 aspect ratio and want to trailer the plane.
Do you support Roncz assertion?
2. HT Thickness
If I design a main wing it is convenient to keep the absolute thickness of the wing constant regardless of the taper. Is that the same case for tail surfaces.
Would it be appropriate to use at the root of the tail surfaces a 63A009 and at the tip a 63A012 with a proportional taper of 75% slightly swept back to have a straight trailing edge? Could I go thicker or thinner to increase the taper?
3. HT loading for spar design
I haven’t found a source that gives indications on the horizontal tail loading to design the tail spar.
4. Horn
I dont understand why some companies build the horn up to the thickest part of the foil (C-152) where the air stream is fastest and the aerodynamic disruption of an elevator move is biggest.
Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to build the elevator horn up the leading edge?
5. Variable Incidence
I am playing around with Ronczs spreadsheet and while filling in the data for the Buttercup (basic inspiration) I get a tail incidence of nearly 2%. The plane has in reality an incidence of 0% and seems to have a proper attitude. I am not saying that Roncz spreadsheet isn’t right but have the feeling that a couple of stochastic terms should be added and that it is fairly difficult to get the right incidence at first without testing.
As I will use a round spar attachment if have been thinking a lot on a variable incidence mechanism located at the front pin. Maybe with nylon ballscrews ,stop discs, belts and a servo it could be kept at 2-4lbs.
It would be very useful to increase the flying envelope and support nice flaps.
The main problem would be to avoid torsions at the front pin due to mechanism failure or imprecisions.
6. TrimTab
With a variable incidence mechanism could I eliminate the trim tab?
7. CTSW Vertical Stab
Would do you think about this tail configuration? It eliminates one interference side.
8. Tube as spar web
If I build a detachable horizontal tail i would like to build it with male and female tubes . That would imply substituting a shear web with a 45º winded carbon tube glued between graphlite rods. Is such a tube equivalent to a straight shear web?
I would appreciate if you could give me some hints regarding the tail design.
1. Horizontal Tail Aspect Ratio
According to Roncz the horizontal tail aspect ratio should be at least half of that of the wing. It is an important issue for me because if I follow that approach I have to build detachable tail surfaces as I am aiming for 8-8,5 aspect ratio and want to trailer the plane.
Do you support Roncz assertion?
2. HT Thickness
If I design a main wing it is convenient to keep the absolute thickness of the wing constant regardless of the taper. Is that the same case for tail surfaces.
Would it be appropriate to use at the root of the tail surfaces a 63A009 and at the tip a 63A012 with a proportional taper of 75% slightly swept back to have a straight trailing edge? Could I go thicker or thinner to increase the taper?
3. HT loading for spar design
I haven’t found a source that gives indications on the horizontal tail loading to design the tail spar.
4. Horn
I dont understand why some companies build the horn up to the thickest part of the foil (C-152) where the air stream is fastest and the aerodynamic disruption of an elevator move is biggest.
Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to build the elevator horn up the leading edge?
5. Variable Incidence
I am playing around with Ronczs spreadsheet and while filling in the data for the Buttercup (basic inspiration) I get a tail incidence of nearly 2%. The plane has in reality an incidence of 0% and seems to have a proper attitude. I am not saying that Roncz spreadsheet isn’t right but have the feeling that a couple of stochastic terms should be added and that it is fairly difficult to get the right incidence at first without testing.
As I will use a round spar attachment if have been thinking a lot on a variable incidence mechanism located at the front pin. Maybe with nylon ballscrews ,stop discs, belts and a servo it could be kept at 2-4lbs.
It would be very useful to increase the flying envelope and support nice flaps.
The main problem would be to avoid torsions at the front pin due to mechanism failure or imprecisions.
6. TrimTab
With a variable incidence mechanism could I eliminate the trim tab?
7. CTSW Vertical Stab
Would do you think about this tail configuration? It eliminates one interference side.
8. Tube as spar web
If I build a detachable horizontal tail i would like to build it with male and female tubes . That would imply substituting a shear web with a 45º winded carbon tube glued between graphlite rods. Is such a tube equivalent to a straight shear web?
