ORIGINAL: DaveL322
ORIGINAL: grotto2
Excuse me if I'm skeptical.
Even if the canalizer works as described, I still don't know a) what to expect when it's added (plus or minus), b) how big it should be, c) what it should be shaped like or d) where it should be placed. Once on my plane, I will be doomed to report that it 'feels' better, lest I admit that I'm a lesser pilot than Mr. Big-Name.
With the technology we have today we still use guess-and-by golly fad approaches for airplane design.
I think we could do better.
Ron,
I'm not personally sold on the horizontal component of the Tcan.....depending on the fuse shape and location, a very simple vertical strake can be very effective. The biggest effect is on the pitching behavior in KE. Most modern designs tend to pitch to the belly in KE - unless the CG is quite forward, which causes other trim problems. On every design I've tested a strake or canalizer, adding the device will impart a pitch to the canopy in KE, and the amount of pitch to the canopy is somewhat proportional to the size of the Tcan/strake. I've seen a 1/2'' x 6'' fin change KE coupling by 3%....very easy way to eliminate Pmix on some planes.
Regards,
Hi Dave,
I don't doubt ,at all, what you say or have found.
With that said I will add the following;
It was CPLR that brought the the T Can,, to this party.
He has removed the vertical component and now sits the 'winglet' directly on top of the fuz,, .
I'm assuming he finds it as good or maybe even better.
All I am saying is that there is ,so far anyway, no one size fits all solution but there are clearly benefits to these 'winglets'.
Brian