"T" Canalizer - Mole or Beauty Spot?  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Pattern Flying >> "T" Canalizer - Mole or Beauty Spot?
Page: [1] 2   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
"T" Canalizer - Mole or Beauty Spot? - 8/15/2006 8:08:10 AM   
Wasson


 

Posts: 94
Joined: 3/24/2003
From: Teesside, UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline 		Theory

Does anyone have a theory – aerodynamic or otherwise – as to why a Canalizer (a la CPLR Oxalys) might improve the flight performance of an F3A Aerobatic aeroplane?

Practice

If anyone has tried a Canalizer on a well tested airframe, what differences - if any - have you noticed?

AA
       Post #: 1

RE: "T" Canalizer - Mole or Beauty Spot? - 8/15/2006 8:55:22 AM   
bla bla


 

Posts: 1580
Joined: 9/19/2002
From: Oslo, NORWAY
Status: offline 		I don't think you need a "theory" as it'smooths the destabled air going over the body and thus presents a more stabled and directed airflow over the fin.
Effect, much inproved/defined rudder control.
Or so they say and I don't seem to see the need to question those that use it.

_____________________________

BR blabla

(in reply to Wasson)
       Post #: 2

RE: "T" Canalizer - Mole or Beauty Spot? - 8/15/2006 9:04:33 AM   
Wasson


 

Posts: 94
Joined: 3/24/2003
From: Teesside, UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline 		bla bla,

The reason for asking the questions is not to criticise but to gain knowledge.

Can you explain to me what's wrong with that?

AA

(in reply to bla bla)
       Post #: 3

RE: "T" Canalizer - Mole or Beauty Spot? - 8/15/2006 9:05:25 AM   
f3a05


 

Posts: 439
Joined: 3/12/2005
From: Saffron Walden, UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline 		Theory:
When I saw the Oxalys, I thought that the fin and rudder looked too short top to bottom relative to the height of the fus., and that it would,relatively, lack rudder authority.
My guess was that the little flat wing was an attempt to direct an air stream onto the top bit of the fin/rudder to get round the problem.
Practice:
Couldn't possibly consider trying it---that would be copying , and would lose face---V. important in FAI F3a!

(in reply to Wasson)
       Post #: 4

RE: "T" Canalizer - Mole or Beauty Spot? - 8/15/2006 12:29:41 PM   
Wasson


 

Posts: 94
Joined: 3/24/2003
From: Teesside, UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline 		f3a05,

Theory

Fascinating. When I first saw a picture of an Oxalys, I thought the same. Yet Steve Burgess –a pilot whom I respect greatly – flies his TS Composite version without a Canalizer and believes that the rudder authority is excellent.

You may remember that CPLR and BPLR both experimented with thicker trailing edges on their rudders – allegedly to soften and smooth out the response around neutral. It would appear that they have now moved from a thicker trailing edge to a Canalizer. Perhaps they consider it to be a better means of achieving the same end.

Matthew Hoyland – another excellent F3A pilot – tried a Canalizer recently on his well campaigned Synergy. In his opinion, the Canalizer flattened the knife edge and also made radiuses – particularly those at the bottom of a downline – more consistent. Matthew is leaving his in place.

Practice

I can empathise with that. Added to which, I don’t feel that it does anything to improve the appearance of a model, and it’s also a sitting target for hangar rash.

In the final analysis however, if I though that it made the aeroplane fly better, I wouldn’t be too proud to use it.

I need all the points I can get!

AA

(in reply to f3a05)
       Post #: 5

RE: "T" Canalizer - Mole or Beauty Spot? - 8/15/2006 3:04:55 PM   
bla bla


 

Posts: 1580
Joined: 9/19/2002
From: Oslo, NORWAY
Status: offline 		Hey, look on the bright side, if our Canalizers don't work out as planed we can always remove the "C".
Maybe that was CPLR's intention all along?

< Message edited by bla bla -- 8/15/2006 9:29:42 PM >

_____________________________

BR blabla

(in reply to Wasson)
       Post #: 6

RE: "T" Canalizer - Mole or Beauty Spot? - 8/17/2006 4:28:59 AM   
ACH


 

Posts: 22
Joined: 7/27/2004
From: Sheffield, UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline 		Lets get back to the original question.

Canalise or Canalize means to channel.

If you have any doubts about its gimmickry, fit one to your model and find out, but it has to be made and fitted to the designers exact specification. Although this was designed for the Oxalys it works on the Synergy, whether it would work on any other model I do not know. The Synergy had no deficiencies in its design or control that were not part of a long and progressive family of very good aircraft, designed a World Champion who has been at the top for a very long time.

No one can tell a pilot which aircraft design is best suited to them. It is a relationship between model and pilot and can only be a feeling that builds up after a long relationship and a natural follow-on from knowing every part of the model through the build. If after the build you can then have had a couple of years to hone that relationship, and then, by adding something new to the model it improves some part of its flight characteristics for you, that is fine, If it works for you and improves some aspect of the flight without detracting from any other part, that is the result of a really great designer. That the World class designer wants to share that detail with everyone, just confirms his confidence in his models and demonstrates just how nice the guy is.

Many fliers will not have the ability to tell the difference the canaliser makes, others will not make the effort to find out for themselves, and most who use the canaliser will never know how the model performed without it.

Don't they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I would like to take that one step further, beauty is not just what you see, but part what you feel as well.

Ashley C Hoyland


(in reply to bla bla)
       Post #: 7

RE: "T" Canalizer - Mole or Beauty Spot? - 8/17/2006 7:36:48 AM   
PeterP



Posts: 339
Joined: 2/17/2003
From: Brisbane, AUSTRALIA
Status: offline 		I am thinking of giving the canalizer a try on my current model which I have done a considerable amount of flying on. I have the specs of the version CPLR has used on his current model so I plan to build it similar. What sort of loads will this device apply to my airframe? I am trying to devise a method of attachment which wont leave any scars on my airframe if I decide it does not suit me.

I am currently flying an IMPACT so the only obvious place to put it is on the rear of the canopy. I think it will be too far back if I try to mount it on the Fuselage. Does anyone have any suggestions.

(in reply to ACH)
       Post #: 8

RE: "T" Canalizer - Mole or Beauty Spot? - 8/17/2006 7:59:01 AM   
f3a05


 

Posts: 439
Joined: 3/12/2005
From: Saffron Walden, UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline 		I think the original ones were add-ons and the photos showed an obvious lip where a shallow rectangular plate had been stuck onto the fus top.
Perhaps you could mould a suitable glass-epoxy sheet to the canopy top(something like solartex gently heat-shrunk to the shape first would provide a peel-ply separator)---or even just a thin ply sheet hand-heated and bent to shape?
Then I would have thought you could attach the whole caboodle with double-sided sellotape for flight tests?


(in reply to PeterP)
       Post #: 9

RE: "T" Canalizer - Mole or Beauty Spot? - 8/17/2006 5:21:44 PM   
Mach1GB


 

Posts: 45
Joined: 1/19/2003
From: Sheffield, UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline 		As AA has stated I have the canaliser on my Synergy, one thing to add to AA's comments is that you can feel the increased drag at the bottom of down lines and the radii which in turn makes the speed more constant and there radii more consistant. I can't feel a difference in knife edge but the model definitley looks flatter, whether this is due to less rudder or aerodynamical I don't know. The canaliser did not cause me to change any trim or mix. For the majority of the flight the model feels identical with or without it.

I made mine from two pieces of balsa to CPLR's dimensions, sanded to an aerofoil and glued with epoxy to form the 'T'. The base was formed with carbon fibre round my Synergy no. 2 fuz, right behind the cockpit. A protective layer was put onto the fuz (Laminating sheet), add some release agent, two layers of carbon and some epoxy. Add another layer of laminating sheet and some release agent, phone directory on top and all taped in place and left to dry. The edges can be trimmed to a rectangle and sanded. This base will therefore perfectly fit your fuz, the T was the epoxied onto the base. Covered in profilm to finish. As i wanted to be able to remove it is simply attached with four pieces of wide tape. The sort I use for hinging surfaces on foamy models. At the moment I have no reason to remove it!! This is very lightly constructed so I doubt it will add only minimal loads to the fuz.

Regards,
Matt Hoyland



< Message edited by Mach1GB -- 8/17/2006 5:24:58 PM >

_____________________________

Visit the Great Britain Radio Control Aerobatic Association Website. http://www.gbrcaa.org

(in reply to f3a05)
       Post #: 10

RE: "T" Canalizer - Mole or Beauty Spot? - 8/17/2006 6:49:33 PM   
Angus Balfour



Posts: 844
Joined: 10/27/2004
From: Glasgow, UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline 		Steve Burgess reckons it is just to equalise the drag of the plane above and below the datum line. The Oxalys already has very low tail and yet it still pitches down with rudder. Steve tried his at the Scottish nats and did notice less pitching down. Knife edge attitude seemed to be the same on or off.

As mentioned already, he feels the rudder power is massive (he only uses 25mm rudder deflection, this is for stall turns as well) so the lack of rudder authority theory is incorrect I would say.

A

_____________________________

A. Balfour - SCOTLAND
Team JR, YS, www.emeraldhobby.com, Engel Modellbau, Flight Power

(in reply to Mach1GB)
       Post #: 11

RE: "T" Canalizer - Mole or Beauty Spot? - 8/17/2006 7:04:14 PM   
f3a05


 

Posts: 439
Joined: 3/12/2005
From: Saffron Walden, UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline
quote:

Steve Burgess reckons it is just to equalise the drag of the plane above and below the datum line. The Oxalys already has very low tail and yet it still pitches down with rudder. Steve tried his at the Scottish nats and did notice less pitching down. Knife edge attitude seemed to be the same on or off.

As mentioned already, he feels the rudder power is massive (he only uses 25mm rudder deflection, this is for stall turns as well) so the lack of rudder authority theory is incorrect I would say.


Now That is interesting--something that can be measured there!If it alters rudder to elevator coupling, its addition should alter the mix percentages---Off to the workshop!
Is there a link to the dimensions somewhere?

(in reply to Angus Balfour)
       Post #: 12

RE: "T" Canalizer - Mole or Beauty Spot? - 8/17/2006 9:24:12 PM   
Angus Balfour



Posts: 844
Joined: 10/27/2004
From: Glasgow, UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline 		Alan,

pm me your email. I have the dimensions along with two drawings I can send you (courtesy of papaone )

A

_____________________________

A. Balfour - SCOTLAND
Team JR, YS, www.emeraldhobby.com, Engel Modellbau, Flight Power

(in reply to f3a05)
       Post #: 13

RE: "T" Canalizer - Mole or Beauty Spot? - 8/17/2006 10:09:00 PM   
PeterP



Posts: 339
Joined: 2/17/2003
From: Brisbane, AUSTRALIA
Status: offline
quote:

Now That is interesting--something that can be measured there!If it alters rudder to elevator coupling, its addition should alter the mix percentages---Off to the workshop!
Is there a link to the dimensions somewhere?


Not necessarily. The mix percentages would still apply. The fact that you are using less rudder to perfom the same manouver means your elevator mix will be less. Everything should remain relative.

(in reply to Angus Balfour)
       Post #: 14

RE: "T" Canalizer - Mole or Beauty Spot? - 10/17/2006 3:59:52 AM   
uro


 

Posts: 27
Joined: 1/18/2004
From: montevideo-------------, URUGUAY
Status: offline 		I might be interested in the dimension and the incidence of the "T.C" to buil it myself

(in reply to Wasson)
       Post #: 15

RE: "T" Canalizer - Mole or Beauty Spot? - 10/17/2006 11:58:54 AM