Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > Aerodynamics
Reload this Page >

Tough time turning!

Notices
Aerodynamics Discuss the physics of flight revolving around the aerodynamics and design of aircraft.

Tough time turning!

Old 02-04-2020, 01:25 PM
  #1  
Will Sgarlat
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Centerville, MA
Posts: 205
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Tough time turning!



This is my new scratch built 3-channel plane that is very reluctant to turn using the rudder. I put in gobs of dihedral and I shaped the rudder to produce most of its power down low. It doesn't have the strong yaw/roll coupling that I wanted. I built another like it many years ago that would do tight barrel rolls with rudder only. It had a 36" wing with a 4" flat center section with polyhedral tips (a broken, thin section, undercamber glider wing that I shortened and reassembled). This older one was shaped very much like this one, both low wing. I added more rudder area and retried it and it is better, but still barely turns. Looking for help in figuring out my next move to make this into a good flyer. Thanks in advance!
Old 02-04-2020, 04:48 PM
  #2  
ahicks
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Waterford, Mi/Citrus Springs, Fl
Posts: 3,739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

First 3 thoughts-
Enough rudder area? Not enough servo throw? Servo too wimpy to move the rudder far enough to do any good?
Old 02-04-2020, 05:26 PM
  #3  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 7,267
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Servo blowback was a thought of mine also. CG too far forward could be a cause as well.
Old 02-05-2020, 04:23 AM
  #4  
UStik
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Augsburg, GERMANY
Posts: 982
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

In both views the vertical tail seems to be shielded or blanketed by the unusually shaped fuselage and the big canopy, which both might make for a lot of turbulence. That might render the rudder ineffective, if that is what you are observing (that is too little yaw and not lacking roll effect despite enough yaw).

You could try a canalizer.

Last edited by UStik; 02-05-2020 at 04:25 AM.
Old 02-05-2020, 05:40 AM
  #5  
Will Sgarlat
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Centerville, MA
Posts: 205
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Thanks for your input fellows, The servo strength and the rudder deflection seem OK but I'll check again. The canopy and yes, the sloping "hood" have an

effect on shadowing the vertical stabilizer. Darn. I can maybe pop that canopy off. My original airplane, with the orange fuselage, had less fuss on it's dorsal side and we can see it has a bigger vertical stab. Can you name the manufacturer and the name of the white one here?
Old 02-05-2020, 05:48 AM
  #6  
Will Sgarlat
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Centerville, MA
Posts: 205
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

To make the rudder area bigger, I did this to it. I know, it's awful, but I'm trying stuff out. This change made the model steerable, but not nearly good enough. Do you think that a thin, undercamber wing would make the plane more responsive than a fatter, flat bottom?

Old 02-05-2020, 06:36 AM
  #7  
UStik
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Augsburg, GERMANY
Posts: 982
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Flat-bottom wing is a tried and proven concept, especially with RE models. I don't think undercamber would help.

If fuselage shape and canopy really shadow the vertical tail I'd try to get the airflow to it. That's why I mentioned a canalizer but maybe even a row of pins put into the kink on the fuselage's top (just in front of the canopy) could help. At least it would be an easy experiment.

P.S.: As an afterthought, I find the dihedral not overly big. I measured 7 (on each side) and that's less than my 8 rule-of-thumb for shoulder-wingers.

Last edited by UStik; 02-05-2020 at 06:46 AM.
The following users liked this post:
Will Sgarlat (02-05-2020)
Old 02-05-2020, 11:37 PM
  #8  
proptop
My Feedback: (8)
 
proptop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 7,036
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Will Sgarlat View Post
Thanks for your input fellows, The servo strength and the rudder deflection seem OK but I'll check again. The canopy and yes, the sloping "hood" have an

effect on shadowing the vertical stabilizer. Darn. I can maybe pop that canopy off. My original airplane, with the orange fuselage, had less fuss on it's dorsal side and we can see it has a bigger vertical stab. Can you name the manufacturer and the name of the white one here?
It looks like the white one might be an Ace "Mach None"
Old 02-06-2020, 04:57 AM
  #9  
Will Sgarlat
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Centerville, MA
Posts: 205
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Yes, Proptop, it is the Ace Mach None! It had only ailerons and elevator and we had to be careful that the fuel didn't run out while you're too far down wind to glide it home! This picture dates from approximately 1986 or 87, so your rememberer is working very well. What a fast, fun, flies-on-rails that plane was!
Old 02-06-2020, 05:09 AM
  #10  
Will Sgarlat
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Centerville, MA
Posts: 205
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by UStik View Post
Flat-bottom wing is a tried and proven concept, especially with RE models. I don't think undercamber would help.

If fuselage shape and canopy really shadow the vertical tail I'd try to get the airflow to it. That's why I mentioned a canalizer but maybe even a row of pins put into the kink on the fuselage's top (just in front of the canopy) could help. At least it would be an easy experiment.

P.S.: As an afterthought, I find the dihedral not overly big. I measured 7 (on each side) and that's less than my 8 rule-of-thumb for shoulder-wingers.
Ustik, I hadn't heard of a canalyser before and I just investigated what it is. Very interesting! Thanks for introducing me to the concept!
Old 02-06-2020, 06:28 AM
  #11  
grognard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

If you're set on flying it with rudder and elevator I'd try increasing the dihedral. Lots of "Old-Timer" free-flight inspired designs have small tails and tiny rudders, but turn very well because of massive amounts of dihedral.

Or you could add ailerons...
Old 02-06-2020, 10:59 AM
  #12  
Will Sgarlat
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Centerville, MA
Posts: 205
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Thanks Grognard, I think I will take your advice and cut the wing in half and re-do it with more dihedral angle, I want this one to remain rudder and elevator. The next one will have a more sensibly shaped fuselage and use four channels with maybe a forward swept wing. Going off and designing one's own planes is way more fun than building kits!
Old 02-06-2020, 12:32 PM
  #13  
grognard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Let us know how it works out!

For the next one, remember that wing sweep contributes to "dihedral effect". That is, sweeping a wing back is equivalent to adding dihedral - and sweeping it forward is equivalent to anhedral. So, you'll need more dihedral than usual with a forward swept wing!

Sweeping a wing forward also moves the "mean aerodynamic chord" forward - which affects the desired CG location. So, you'll either need ballast, an extended forward fuselage - or to shift the wing root backward.

Last edited by grognard; 02-06-2020 at 12:37 PM.
Old 02-07-2020, 08:57 PM
  #14  
BMatthews
 
BMatthews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chilliwack, BC, CANADA
Posts: 12,344
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Your weak rudder to roll might be a couple of things. First off flying speed makes a difference. Try flying a touch faster and see if things perk up. Next is that comparing the new blue and yellow model to the orange and patches (?) one in the old picture makes it seem like the new one has less dihedral. And that might be part of the issue.
Old 02-08-2020, 04:03 AM
  #15  
Will Sgarlat
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Centerville, MA
Posts: 205
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Thank you Mr. B., I'm going to cut the wing and add more dihedral. I measured it and the dihedral angle is 13.3, less than 7 per side. Ustik above measured well from the picture! I'm disappointed, but it will fly well soon. I'll report back when changes have been made.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.