My SM F-14 Tomcat
08-27-2014, 08:31 AM
#127
im going to put both slat/flaps on the same switch but each servo will have its own channel so I can adjust end points and travel to make sure of no binding.
I will more than likely do flaps first then once I get the maiden done add in the slats. Then once its all setup add them both to one switch.
I will more than likely do flaps first then once I get the maiden done add in the slats. Then once its all setup add them both to one switch.
Last edited by FenderBean; 08-27-2014 at 08:57 AM.
08-27-2014, 08:45 AM
#128
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perth, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Wim,
I am also using the flap switch to operate all at once. I will be using XBus, so this allows me to adjust the slat end points of each servo seperately.
The book states:
Slats: 10mm take off and 20mm landing Take note of picture 23 & 24 which shows 20mm on the outer slat edge and 25mm travel on the inner slat edge. So using this as a guide I have decided to make my slat servos with different end points, so at full landing slat I have 20mm slat at the wing tip and 25mm slat at the wing root. Take off flaps I would hope would be about half of that, say 10mm slat at the wing tip and 12.5mm at the wing root.
Flaps: 20 degrees take off and 45 degrees landing
Obviously it will be a balancing act to get close with using only 1 channel (flap) for the whole lot, but with xbus it is probably achieveable for me, as each servo can be independently set up on the one channel.
I am also using the flap switch to operate all at once. I will be using XBus, so this allows me to adjust the slat end points of each servo seperately.
The book states:
Slats: 10mm take off and 20mm landing Take note of picture 23 & 24 which shows 20mm on the outer slat edge and 25mm travel on the inner slat edge. So using this as a guide I have decided to make my slat servos with different end points, so at full landing slat I have 20mm slat at the wing tip and 25mm slat at the wing root. Take off flaps I would hope would be about half of that, say 10mm slat at the wing tip and 12.5mm at the wing root.
Flaps: 20 degrees take off and 45 degrees landing
Obviously it will be a balancing act to get close with using only 1 channel (flap) for the whole lot, but with xbus it is probably achieveable for me, as each servo can be independently set up on the one channel.
08-27-2014, 11:41 AM
#130
hey guys, thx for the feedback.
I got my slats set up mechanicly, pretty close to the instructions, finetuning will be done with the powerbox, as will the flap servo's. I was just hoping to be able to avoid having to use two channels from the transmitter with a curve mix for slat & flap. end points, throw and center can be setup for each individual servo with the powerbox. I just hope I can tie 6 servo's to one input channel. If not, I'll have to look into the possibilities to set up the servo's individually....
On the point of using flaps without the slats: don't know if this is a good idea here... with the full span flaps, wouldn't you be prone to induce a tip stall?? (remember the landing on the maiden of Wendell's FEJ F-14?) Using full span flaps, you effectively increase the AOA on the whole wing....
Wim
I got my slats set up mechanicly, pretty close to the instructions, finetuning will be done with the powerbox, as will the flap servo's. I was just hoping to be able to avoid having to use two channels from the transmitter with a curve mix for slat & flap. end points, throw and center can be setup for each individual servo with the powerbox. I just hope I can tie 6 servo's to one input channel. If not, I'll have to look into the possibilities to set up the servo's individually....
On the point of using flaps without the slats: don't know if this is a good idea here... with the full span flaps, wouldn't you be prone to induce a tip stall?? (remember the landing on the maiden of Wendell's FEJ F-14?) Using full span flaps, you effectively increase the AOA on the whole wing....
Wim
08-27-2014, 01:02 PM
#132
Thomas,
that is what I was wondering about, the relationshi^p between the extension of flaps and slats.... I think I remember something like the spoilers were 'relaxed' with maneuvering flaps as well, ie. not totally retracted... would make sense, as the upper face of the wing is made 'bigger'............
that is what I was wondering about, the relationshi^p between the extension of flaps and slats.... I think I remember something like the spoilers were 'relaxed' with maneuvering flaps as well, ie. not totally retracted... would make sense, as the upper face of the wing is made 'bigger'............
08-27-2014, 01:36 PM
#133
Thomas,
that is what I was wondering about, the relationshi^p between the extension of flaps and slats.... I think I remember something like the spoilers were 'relaxed' with maneuvering flaps as well, ie. not totally retracted... would make sense, as the upper face of the wing is made 'bigger'............
that is what I was wondering about, the relationshi^p between the extension of flaps and slats.... I think I remember something like the spoilers were 'relaxed' with maneuvering flaps as well, ie. not totally retracted... would make sense, as the upper face of the wing is made 'bigger'............
As far as takeoff, as best i can determine from the natops manual, for field takeoffs, no flaps or a setting similar to the manuever flap position were used. I believe most used manuever flap one as it prevented any uncommanded wing sweep due. On the boat i believe they used full flaps. Im not 100% sure on this, but it seems reasonable. Maybe one of the guys who actually flew the thing will chime in.
08-28-2014, 11:12 AM
#138
DrScoles, I agree.......... done with the bashing as well.... got better things to do... I think everyone who is still willing to put his money into a FEJ jet, is out on his own, and shouldn't come whining afterwards.........,now, if everyone would just be willing to get back to the order of the day, and that is having fun building and flying!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wim
Wim
08-28-2014, 01:46 PM
#143
Something like that.. I believe when the plane is dead (no hydraulic power) the spoilers actually fall into the wing / flap cavity a bit giving a less than desireable upper surface camber. This is due to the airplane not having any hydraulic accumulator so once the engine driven hyd. Pumps stop turning, pressure bleeds off and they sag. Once pressure is restored, they pop up a bit to align with the eyebrow doors on the flaps and restore the smooth surface.
As far as takeoff, as best i can determine from the natops manual, for field takeoffs, no flaps or a setting similar to the manuever flap position were used. I believe most used manuever flap one as it prevented any uncommanded wing sweep due. On the boat i believe they used full flaps. Im not 100% sure on this, but it seems reasonable. Maybe one of the guys who actually flew the thing will chime in.
As far as takeoff, as best i can determine from the natops manual, for field takeoffs, no flaps or a setting similar to the manuever flap position were used. I believe most used manuever flap one as it prevented any uncommanded wing sweep due. On the boat i believe they used full flaps. Im not 100% sure on this, but it seems reasonable. Maybe one of the guys who actually flew the thing will chime in.
The flaps and slats always worked together, just as you've described, and as shown in the NATOPS pic you attached in post #131. And yes, with the flap handle control, flaps were selected either up or down, and the slats moved up or full extend in conjunction with the flap handle. Field takeoffs could be done either in MIL power or A/B. If MIL was used, then flaps down was selected (and with them full slat extension). For a 'burner' takeoff, typically flaps/slats up was the norm.
Maneuver flaps/slats would extend automatically (except in old Block 65 jets, the one's without an "Alpha" or Rosemont probe on the nose) above a certain AOA, if wingsweep in the 20 deg-55deg range. There was an arc on the flap gage that showed the 'maneuver' range of travel. The maneuvering devices could also be extended/retracted via the stick grip thumbwheel...the same thumbwheel used for DLC (Direct Lift Control) in the landing configuration/flaps down.
Yes, NATOPS says you could get uncommanded wing sweep in the flaps-up takeoff configuration, but I never saw it happen. I can't recall ever worrying about it, or briefing it as something to look out for. Sometimes "maneuver" flaps (and with it maneuver slats) were selected via the stick grip thumbwheel for takeoff, but this was more due to personal preference on the way the jet felt as it lifted off and accelerated, rather than a concern over uncommanded wing sweep.
Carrier launches were always done with flaps/slats down/extended, regardless of MIL or A/B selection.
Again, very impressive Tomcat systems knowledge!! You'd certainly pass the NATOPS hydraulics and flap/slat systems portion of the closed-book exam!
Sluggo
Last edited by VF84sluggo; 08-28-2014 at 02:02 PM.
08-28-2014, 03:26 PM
#144
Thomas, you're pretty much spot-on here.
The flaps and slats always worked together, just as you've described, and as shown in the NATOPS pic you attached in post #131. And yes, with the flap handle control, flaps were selected either up or down, and the slats moved up or full extend in conjunction with the flap handle. Field takeoffs could be done either in MIL power or A/B. If MIL was used, then flaps down was selected (and with them full slat extension). For a 'burner' takeoff, typically flaps/slats up was the norm.
Maneuver flaps/slats would extend automatically (except in old Block 65 jets, the one's without an "Alpha" or Rosemont probe on the nose) above a certain AOA, if wingsweep in the 20 deg-55deg range. There was an arc on the flap gage that showed the 'maneuver' range of travel. The maneuvering devices could also be extended/retracted via the stick grip thumbwheel...the same thumbwheel used for DLC (Direct Lift Control) in the landing configuration/flaps down.
Yes, NATOPS says you could get uncommanded wing sweep in the flaps-up takeoff configuration, but I never saw it happen. I can't recall ever worrying about it, or briefing it as something to look out for. Sometimes "maneuver" flaps (and with it maneuver slats) were selected via the stick grip thumbwheel for takeoff, but this was more due to personal preference on the way the jet felt as it lifted off and accelerated, rather than a concern over uncommanded wing sweep.
Carrier launches were always done with flaps/slats down/extended, regardless of MIL or A/B selection.
Again, very impressive Tomcat systems knowledge!! You'd certainly pass the NATOPS hydraulics and flap/slat systems portion of the closed-book exam!
Sluggo
The flaps and slats always worked together, just as you've described, and as shown in the NATOPS pic you attached in post #131. And yes, with the flap handle control, flaps were selected either up or down, and the slats moved up or full extend in conjunction with the flap handle. Field takeoffs could be done either in MIL power or A/B. If MIL was used, then flaps down was selected (and with them full slat extension). For a 'burner' takeoff, typically flaps/slats up was the norm.
Maneuver flaps/slats would extend automatically (except in old Block 65 jets, the one's without an "Alpha" or Rosemont probe on the nose) above a certain AOA, if wingsweep in the 20 deg-55deg range. There was an arc on the flap gage that showed the 'maneuver' range of travel. The maneuvering devices could also be extended/retracted via the stick grip thumbwheel...the same thumbwheel used for DLC (Direct Lift Control) in the landing configuration/flaps down.
Yes, NATOPS says you could get uncommanded wing sweep in the flaps-up takeoff configuration, but I never saw it happen. I can't recall ever worrying about it, or briefing it as something to look out for. Sometimes "maneuver" flaps (and with it maneuver slats) were selected via the stick grip thumbwheel for takeoff, but this was more due to personal preference on the way the jet felt as it lifted off and accelerated, rather than a concern over uncommanded wing sweep.
Carrier launches were always done with flaps/slats down/extended, regardless of MIL or A/B selection.
Again, very impressive Tomcat systems knowledge!! You'd certainly pass the NATOPS hydraulics and flap/slat systems portion of the closed-book exam!
Sluggo
08-29-2014, 12:46 AM
#146
Mick, are you still planning to show your hydraulic setup? Good luck
Wim, what is the actual hook part made of? My other f-14 was had a heavy hook so I made a new one out of a carbon tailboom which saves weight. Looking good
Wim, what is the actual hook part made of? My other f-14 was had a heavy hook so I made a new one out of a carbon tailboom which saves weight. Looking good
08-29-2014, 12:53 AM
#147
Fender,
It's a fibreglass molded part, and indeed a tad on the heavy side.... I've been playing with the carbon rod idea as well... plus, it's ever so slightly too long, it portrudes a bit behind the boat tail......If needed to get the CG right, i'll modify it...........
It's a fibreglass molded part, and indeed a tad on the heavy side.... I've been playing with the carbon rod idea as well... plus, it's ever so slightly too long, it portrudes a bit behind the boat tail......If needed to get the CG right, i'll modify it...........
08-29-2014, 12:58 AM
#148
Cool thanks for the info, Trex 450 carbon tailboom is spot on for a replacement. Plus its very light and then a small metal gear servo is used for movement. Weight is less than the cylinder, airlines, and two-way valve, but thats just me I make everything as light as possible.
