Akibas Newest Ride
04-25-2011 | 10:48 AM
#27
My Feedback: (34)
RE: Akibas Newest Ride
ORIGINAL: mithrandir
I think the ''T-Canalizer'' is just the design tactic of someone who can't commit to a biplane!! lol
What does it do? What are the aerodynamic principles??
I think the ''T-Canalizer'' is just the design tactic of someone who can't commit to a biplane!! lol
What does it do? What are the aerodynamic principles??
04-25-2011 | 12:34 PM
#28
Senior Member
RE: Akibas Newest Ride
ORIGINAL: pattratt
Tony
Tommy Street also flew a belt drive system around the same time or earlier. I think the aircraft was called something Wind? Earl might remember.
Dick
Tony
Tommy Street also flew a belt drive system around the same time or earlier. I think the aircraft was called something Wind? Earl might remember.
Dick
04-25-2011 | 02:55 PM
#30
My Feedback: (2)
RE: Akibas Newest Ride
ORIGINAL: Doug Cronkhite
It's a flow straightener for spiral slipstream placed at the center of pressure (more or less) so it has no yaw moment arm.
ORIGINAL: mithrandir
I think the ''T-Canalizer'' is just the design tactic of someone who can't commit to a biplane!! lol
What does it do? What are the aerodynamic principles??
I think the ''T-Canalizer'' is just the design tactic of someone who can't commit to a biplane!! lol
What does it do? What are the aerodynamic principles??
SFG no??.. prolly not good for cross wind???)
04-26-2011 | 05:53 AM
#32
Senior Member
My Feedback: (25)
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Akibas Newest Ride
I talked to Robert Vess about it after I put mine on my airplane, and he used a lot of big words such as "and" and the", so I didn't understand much. But what I did take away from it was that the canalizer stops the spiral slipstream, and entrains the air going to the vertical fin. I'd like to put an airplane in a wind tunnel and do some flow testing on it, because to me, the vortices and turbulence of the air as it goes off of the back of the canalizer would seem to make the rudder less effective and have the opposite effect of what it actually does. Robert felt that those factors were probably negligent in the grand scheme of things, which is why the canalizer works as well as it does.
That being said, the effects I noted when I put mine on were:
1. More drag for more constant speed. The airplane that I am running this on still has a 1.70 in it, so I can't give an accurate comparison with regard to power loss with the addition of the canalizer. I can say that I will still have them on electric airplanes, though. I actually made mine with an airfoiled pylon and wing that has the same airfoil as the wing. I don't know that it makes any difference having an airfoil versus a flat plate, and honestly, I went the route I did because I thought it would look better and I could make it stronger and probably lighter than a flat plate.
2. More rudder power. I normally fly with quite a bit of rudder throw even in my normal flight condition because I like a balanced feel between the amount of input it takes to get the airplane to do something when the rudder and elevator is used together. I cut my rudder throw in half, and still had more rudder power than I had before. I can do a pretty tight knife edge loop on low rate.
3. Reduction in mixing. I got rid of all of the mixing I had in the airplane, and it was pretty darn close. I will trim the airplane out more this spring/summer. Winters here in central Illinois are not very conducive to flying model airplanes, I've unfortunately found.
4. Somewhere else to put stickers. This is self explanatory.
5. Table for placing drink prior to flight. This is self explanatory.
6. Cool conversation piece. Also self explanatory.
All in all, I think it was totally worth it. After flying an airplane design for five years without it, I think I have a pretty good gauge as to what it does. They are very effective and quite worth the effort. I thought I had a picture of mine on my phone, but I don't have the SD card that it was saved to on here. I'll see if I can dig mine up and post it here. I know this thread is about Akiba's new airplane, but I'm good at continuing tangents and derailments.
Carry on.
That being said, the effects I noted when I put mine on were:
1. More drag for more constant speed. The airplane that I am running this on still has a 1.70 in it, so I can't give an accurate comparison with regard to power loss with the addition of the canalizer. I can say that I will still have them on electric airplanes, though. I actually made mine with an airfoiled pylon and wing that has the same airfoil as the wing. I don't know that it makes any difference having an airfoil versus a flat plate, and honestly, I went the route I did because I thought it would look better and I could make it stronger and probably lighter than a flat plate.
2. More rudder power. I normally fly with quite a bit of rudder throw even in my normal flight condition because I like a balanced feel between the amount of input it takes to get the airplane to do something when the rudder and elevator is used together. I cut my rudder throw in half, and still had more rudder power than I had before. I can do a pretty tight knife edge loop on low rate.
3. Reduction in mixing. I got rid of all of the mixing I had in the airplane, and it was pretty darn close. I will trim the airplane out more this spring/summer. Winters here in central Illinois are not very conducive to flying model airplanes, I've unfortunately found.
4. Somewhere else to put stickers. This is self explanatory.
5. Table for placing drink prior to flight. This is self explanatory.
6. Cool conversation piece. Also self explanatory.
All in all, I think it was totally worth it. After flying an airplane design for five years without it, I think I have a pretty good gauge as to what it does. They are very effective and quite worth the effort. I thought I had a picture of mine on my phone, but I don't have the SD card that it was saved to on here. I'll see if I can dig mine up and post it here. I know this thread is about Akiba's new airplane, but I'm good at continuing tangents and derailments.
Carry on.
04-26-2011 | 06:26 AM
#34
My Feedback: (45)
RE: Akibas Newest Ride
ORIGINAL: Ryan Smith
I talked to Robert Vess about it after I put mine on my airplane, and he used a lot of big words such as ''and'' and the'', so I didn't understand much. But what I did take away from it was that the canalizer stops the spiral slipstream, and entrains the air going to the vertical fin. I'd like to put an airplane in a wind tunnel and do some flow testing on it, because to me, the vortices and turbulence of the air as it goes off of the back of the canalizer would seem to make the rudder less effective and have the opposite effect of what it actually does. Robert felt that those factors were probably negligent in the grand scheme of things, which is why the canalizer works as well as it does.
That being said, the effects I noted when I put mine on were:
1. More drag for more constant speed. The airplane that I am running this on still has a 1.70 in it, so I can't give an accurate comparison with regard to power loss with the addition of the canalizer. I can say that I will still have them on electric airplanes, though. I actually made mine with an airfoiled pylon and wing that has the same airfoil as the wing. I don't know that it makes any difference having an airfoil versus a flat plate, and honestly, I went the route I did because I thought it would look better and I could make it stronger and probably lighter than a flat plate.
2. More rudder power. I normally fly with quite a bit of rudder throw even in my normal flight condition because I like a balanced feel between the amount of input it takes to get the airplane to do something when the rudder and elevator is used together. I cut my rudder throw in half, and still had more rudder power than I had before. I can do a pretty tight knife edge loop on low rate.
3. Reduction in mixing. I got rid of all of the mixing I had in the airplane, and it was pretty damn close. I will trim the airplane out more this spring/summer. Winters here in central Illinois are not very conducive to flying model airplanes, I've unfortunately found.
4. Somewhere else to put stickers. This is self explanatory.
5. Table for placing drink prior to flight. This is self explanatory.
6. Cool conversation piece. Also self explanatory.
All in all, I think it was totally worth it. After flying an airplane design for five years without it, I think I have a pretty good gauge as to what it does. They are very effective and quite worth the effort. I thought I had a picture of mine on my phone, but I don't have the SD card that it was saved to on here. I'll see if I can dig mine up and post it here. I know this thread is about Akiba's new airplane, but I'm good at continuing tangents and derailments.
Carry on.
I talked to Robert Vess about it after I put mine on my airplane, and he used a lot of big words such as ''and'' and the'', so I didn't understand much. But what I did take away from it was that the canalizer stops the spiral slipstream, and entrains the air going to the vertical fin. I'd like to put an airplane in a wind tunnel and do some flow testing on it, because to me, the vortices and turbulence of the air as it goes off of the back of the canalizer would seem to make the rudder less effective and have the opposite effect of what it actually does. Robert felt that those factors were probably negligent in the grand scheme of things, which is why the canalizer works as well as it does.
That being said, the effects I noted when I put mine on were:
1. More drag for more constant speed. The airplane that I am running this on still has a 1.70 in it, so I can't give an accurate comparison with regard to power loss with the addition of the canalizer. I can say that I will still have them on electric airplanes, though. I actually made mine with an airfoiled pylon and wing that has the same airfoil as the wing. I don't know that it makes any difference having an airfoil versus a flat plate, and honestly, I went the route I did because I thought it would look better and I could make it stronger and probably lighter than a flat plate.
2. More rudder power. I normally fly with quite a bit of rudder throw even in my normal flight condition because I like a balanced feel between the amount of input it takes to get the airplane to do something when the rudder and elevator is used together. I cut my rudder throw in half, and still had more rudder power than I had before. I can do a pretty tight knife edge loop on low rate.
3. Reduction in mixing. I got rid of all of the mixing I had in the airplane, and it was pretty damn close. I will trim the airplane out more this spring/summer. Winters here in central Illinois are not very conducive to flying model airplanes, I've unfortunately found.
4. Somewhere else to put stickers. This is self explanatory.
5. Table for placing drink prior to flight. This is self explanatory.
6. Cool conversation piece. Also self explanatory.
All in all, I think it was totally worth it. After flying an airplane design for five years without it, I think I have a pretty good gauge as to what it does. They are very effective and quite worth the effort. I thought I had a picture of mine on my phone, but I don't have the SD card that it was saved to on here. I'll see if I can dig mine up and post it here. I know this thread is about Akiba's new airplane, but I'm good at continuing tangents and derailments.
Carry on.
You left out number 7. Makes a nice handle.
Arch
04-26-2011 | 07:06 AM
#37
My Feedback: (41)
RE: Akibas Newest Ride
ORIGINAL: Ryan Smith
I talked to Robert Vess about it after I put mine on my airplane, and he used a lot of big words such as "and" and the", so I didn't understand much. But what I did take away from it was that the canalizer stops the spiral slipstream, and entrains the air going to the vertical fin. I'd like to put an airplane in a wind tunnel and do some flow testing on it, because to me, the vortices and turbulence of the air as it goes off of the back of the canalizer would seem to make the rudder less effective and have the opposite effect of what it actually does. Robert felt that those factors were probably negligent in the grand scheme of things, which is why the canalizer works as well as it does.
That being said, the effects I noted when I put mine on were:
1. More drag for more constant speed. The airplane that I am running this on still has a 1.70 in it, so I can't give an accurate comparison with regard to power loss with the addition of the canalizer. I can say that I will still have them on electric airplanes, though. I actually made mine with an airfoiled pylon and wing that has the same airfoil as the wing. I don't know that it makes any difference having an airfoil versus a flat plate, and honestly, I went the route I did because I thought it would look better and I could make it stronger and probably lighter than a flat plate.
2. More rudder power. I normally fly with quite a bit of rudder throw even in my normal flight condition because I like a balanced feel between the amount of input it takes to get the airplane to do something when the rudder and elevator is used together. I cut my rudder throw in half, and still had more rudder power than I had before. I can do a pretty tight knife edge loop on low rate.
3. Reduction in mixing. I got rid of all of the mixing I had in the airplane, and it was pretty damn close. I will trim the airplane out more this spring/summer. Winters here in central Illinois are not very conducive to flying model airplanes, I've unfortunately found.
4. Somewhere else to put stickers. This is self explanatory.
5. Table for placing drink prior to flight. This is self explanatory.
6. Cool conversation piece. Also self explanatory.
All in all, I think it was totally worth it. After flying an airplane design for five years without it, I think I have a pretty good gauge as to what it does. They are very effective and quite worth the effort. I thought I had a picture of mine on my phone, but I don't have the SD card that it was saved to on here. I'll see if I can dig mine up and post it here. I know this thread is about Akiba's new airplane, but I'm good at continuing tangents and derailments.
Carry on.
I talked to Robert Vess about it after I put mine on my airplane, and he used a lot of big words such as "and" and the", so I didn't understand much. But what I did take away from it was that the canalizer stops the spiral slipstream, and entrains the air going to the vertical fin. I'd like to put an airplane in a wind tunnel and do some flow testing on it, because to me, the vortices and turbulence of the air as it goes off of the back of the canalizer would seem to make the rudder less effective and have the opposite effect of what it actually does. Robert felt that those factors were probably negligent in the grand scheme of things, which is why the canalizer works as well as it does.
That being said, the effects I noted when I put mine on were:
1. More drag for more constant speed. The airplane that I am running this on still has a 1.70 in it, so I can't give an accurate comparison with regard to power loss with the addition of the canalizer. I can say that I will still have them on electric airplanes, though. I actually made mine with an airfoiled pylon and wing that has the same airfoil as the wing. I don't know that it makes any difference having an airfoil versus a flat plate, and honestly, I went the route I did because I thought it would look better and I could make it stronger and probably lighter than a flat plate.
2. More rudder power. I normally fly with quite a bit of rudder throw even in my normal flight condition because I like a balanced feel between the amount of input it takes to get the airplane to do something when the rudder and elevator is used together. I cut my rudder throw in half, and still had more rudder power than I had before. I can do a pretty tight knife edge loop on low rate.
3. Reduction in mixing. I got rid of all of the mixing I had in the airplane, and it was pretty damn close. I will trim the airplane out more this spring/summer. Winters here in central Illinois are not very conducive to flying model airplanes, I've unfortunately found.
4. Somewhere else to put stickers. This is self explanatory.
5. Table for placing drink prior to flight. This is self explanatory.
6. Cool conversation piece. Also self explanatory.
All in all, I think it was totally worth it. After flying an airplane design for five years without it, I think I have a pretty good gauge as to what it does. They are very effective and quite worth the effort. I thought I had a picture of mine on my phone, but I don't have the SD card that it was saved to on here. I'll see if I can dig mine up and post it here. I know this thread is about Akiba's new airplane, but I'm good at continuing tangents and derailments.
Carry on.
One disadvantage is to the caller. I hate carrying a plane with a T can.
Bill Ahrens and Dave Snow have messed around with all kinds of do dads stuck on their planes. Seems to me the've had some success with changing the trailing edges on their rudders.
I agree that a wind tunnel could really help. You had tons of them in Nascar country didn't you?
Think warm weather without rain and gale force winds!!!!! Mike
04-26-2011 | 07:16 AM
#38
Senior Member
RE: Akibas Newest Ride
ORIGINAL: klhoard
.
So the Contra-Drives that we'll all be installing next year will make the T-Canaballizer's obsolete?
.
.
So the Contra-Drives that we'll all be installing next year will make the T-Canaballizer's obsolete?
.
The canabalizer serves a similar purpose, although just the vertical is good enough for that purpose alone. It's a pivot which also helps raise the center of pressure on the vertical stab. Helps with all the mixing and force coupling
When you see only a horizontal with no vertical component, the horizontal area adds to the wing.... A simple transferring of the area they have removed from the main wing. That way the stab percentage and TVC can be maintained
04-26-2011 | 07:22 AM
#39
My Feedback: (6)
RE: Akibas Newest Ride
Tommy...a local Houstonian RCU Forum name "FixedWing" recently completed a Mark Hunt Pentathlon EVO and added an adjustable T-Can. Go to [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10070805]Post#58[/link] of his RCU build thread for details. He is planning to attend the Space City contest this weekend. Hope to see you as well.
04-26-2011 | 07:26 AM
#40
Senior Member
My Feedback: (25)
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Akibas Newest Ride
ORIGINAL: mups53
Thanks Ryan that's a good explanation.
One disadvantage is to the caller. I hate carrying a plane with a T can.
Bill Ahrens and Dave Snow have messed around with all kinds of do dads stuck on their planes. Seems to me the've had some success with changing the trailing edges on their rudders.
I agree that a wind tunnel could really help. You had tons of them in Nascar country didn't you?
Think warm weather without rain and gale force winds!!!!! Mike
ORIGINAL: Ryan Smith
I talked to Robert Vess about it after I put mine on my airplane, and he used a lot of big words such as ''and'' and the'', so I didn't understand much. But what I did take away from it was that the canalizer stops the spiral slipstream, and entrains the air going to the vertical fin. I'd like to put an airplane in a wind tunnel and do some flow testing on it, because to me, the vortices and turbulence of the air as it goes off of the back of the canalizer would seem to make the rudder less effective and have the opposite effect of what it actually does. Robert felt that those factors were probably negligent in the grand scheme of things, which is why the canalizer works as well as it does.
That being said, the effects I noted when I put mine on were:
1. More drag for more constant speed. The airplane that I am running this on still has a 1.70 in it, so I can't give an accurate comparison with regard to power loss with the addition of the canalizer. I can say that I will still have them on electric airplanes, though. I actually made mine with an airfoiled pylon and wing that has the same airfoil as the wing. I don't know that it makes any difference having an airfoil versus a flat plate, and honestly, I went the route I did because I thought it would look better and I could make it stronger and probably lighter than a flat plate.
2. More rudder power. I normally fly with quite a bit of rudder throw even in my normal flight condition because I like a balanced feel between the amount of input it takes to get the airplane to do something when the rudder and elevator is used together. I cut my rudder throw in half, and still had more rudder power than I had before. I can do a pretty tight knife edge loop on low rate.
3. Reduction in mixing. I got rid of all of the mixing I had in the airplane, and it was pretty damn close. I will trim the airplane out more this spring/summer. Winters here in central Illinois are not very conducive to flying model airplanes, I've unfortunately found.
4. Somewhere else to put stickers. This is self explanatory.
5. Table for placing drink prior to flight. This is self explanatory.
6. Cool conversation piece. Also self explanatory.
All in all, I think it was totally worth it. After flying an airplane design for five years without it, I think I have a pretty good gauge as to what it does. They are very effective and quite worth the effort. I thought I had a picture of mine on my phone, but I don't have the SD card that it was saved to on here. I'll see if I can dig mine up and post it here. I know this thread is about Akiba's new airplane, but I'm good at continuing tangents and derailments.
Carry on.
I talked to Robert Vess about it after I put mine on my airplane, and he used a lot of big words such as ''and'' and the'', so I didn't understand much. But what I did take away from it was that the canalizer stops the spiral slipstream, and entrains the air going to the vertical fin. I'd like to put an airplane in a wind tunnel and do some flow testing on it, because to me, the vortices and turbulence of the air as it goes off of the back of the canalizer would seem to make the rudder less effective and have the opposite effect of what it actually does. Robert felt that those factors were probably negligent in the grand scheme of things, which is why the canalizer works as well as it does.
That being said, the effects I noted when I put mine on were:
1. More drag for more constant speed. The airplane that I am running this on still has a 1.70 in it, so I can't give an accurate comparison with regard to power loss with the addition of the canalizer. I can say that I will still have them on electric airplanes, though. I actually made mine with an airfoiled pylon and wing that has the same airfoil as the wing. I don't know that it makes any difference having an airfoil versus a flat plate, and honestly, I went the route I did because I thought it would look better and I could make it stronger and probably lighter than a flat plate.
2. More rudder power. I normally fly with quite a bit of rudder throw even in my normal flight condition because I like a balanced feel between the amount of input it takes to get the airplane to do something when the rudder and elevator is used together. I cut my rudder throw in half, and still had more rudder power than I had before. I can do a pretty tight knife edge loop on low rate.
3. Reduction in mixing. I got rid of all of the mixing I had in the airplane, and it was pretty damn close. I will trim the airplane out more this spring/summer. Winters here in central Illinois are not very conducive to flying model airplanes, I've unfortunately found.
4. Somewhere else to put stickers. This is self explanatory.
5. Table for placing drink prior to flight. This is self explanatory.
6. Cool conversation piece. Also self explanatory.
All in all, I think it was totally worth it. After flying an airplane design for five years without it, I think I have a pretty good gauge as to what it does. They are very effective and quite worth the effort. I thought I had a picture of mine on my phone, but I don't have the SD card that it was saved to on here. I'll see if I can dig mine up and post it here. I know this thread is about Akiba's new airplane, but I'm good at continuing tangents and derailments.
Carry on.
One disadvantage is to the caller. I hate carrying a plane with a T can.
Bill Ahrens and Dave Snow have messed around with all kinds of do dads stuck on their planes. Seems to me the've had some success with changing the trailing edges on their rudders.
I agree that a wind tunnel could really help. You had tons of them in Nascar country didn't you?
Think warm weather without rain and gale force winds!!!!! Mike
My friend Matt here is doing a pretty good job with it! This is the only picture I could access of it at work.
04-26-2011 | 07:28 AM
#41
Senior Member
My Feedback: (25)
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Akibas Newest Ride
ORIGINAL: rcpattern
Ryan,
You left out number 7. Makes a nice handle.
Arch
ORIGINAL: Ryan Smith
I talked to Robert Vess about it after I put mine on my airplane, and he used a lot of big words such as ''and'' and the'', so I didn't understand much. But what I did take away from it was that the canalizer stops the spiral slipstream, and entrains the air going to the vertical fin. I'd like to put an airplane in a wind tunnel and do some flow testing on it, because to me, the vortices and turbulence of the air as it goes off of the back of the canalizer would seem to make the rudder less effective and have the opposite effect of what it actually does. Robert felt that those factors were probably negligent in the grand scheme of things, which is why the canalizer works as well as it does.
That being said, the effects I noted when I put mine on were:
1. More drag for more constant speed. The airplane that I am running this on still has a 1.70 in it, so I can't give an accurate comparison with regard to power loss with the addition of the canalizer. I can say that I will still have them on electric airplanes, though. I actually made mine with an airfoiled pylon and wing that has the same airfoil as the wing. I don't know that it makes any difference having an airfoil versus a flat plate, and honestly, I went the route I did because I thought it would look better and I could make it stronger and probably lighter than a flat plate.
2. More rudder power. I normally fly with quite a bit of rudder throw even in my normal flight condition because I like a balanced feel between the amount of input it takes to get the airplane to do something when the rudder and elevator is used together. I cut my rudder throw in half, and still had more rudder power than I had before. I can do a pretty tight knife edge loop on low rate.
3. Reduction in mixing. I got rid of all of the mixing I had in the airplane, and it was pretty damn close. I will trim the airplane out more this spring/summer. Winters here in central Illinois are not very conducive to flying model airplanes, I've unfortunately found.
4. Somewhere else to put stickers. This is self explanatory.
5. Table for placing drink prior to flight. This is self explanatory.
6. Cool conversation piece. Also self explanatory.
All in all, I think it was totally worth it. After flying an airplane design for five years without it, I think I have a pretty good gauge as to what it does. They are very effective and quite worth the effort. I thought I had a picture of mine on my phone, but I don't have the SD card that it was saved to on here. I'll see if I can dig mine up and post it here. I know this thread is about Akiba's new airplane, but I'm good at continuing tangents and derailments.
Carry on.
I talked to Robert Vess about it after I put mine on my airplane, and he used a lot of big words such as ''and'' and the'', so I didn't understand much. But what I did take away from it was that the canalizer stops the spiral slipstream, and entrains the air going to the vertical fin. I'd like to put an airplane in a wind tunnel and do some flow testing on it, because to me, the vortices and turbulence of the air as it goes off of the back of the canalizer would seem to make the rudder less effective and have the opposite effect of what it actually does. Robert felt that those factors were probably negligent in the grand scheme of things, which is why the canalizer works as well as it does.
That being said, the effects I noted when I put mine on were:
1. More drag for more constant speed. The airplane that I am running this on still has a 1.70 in it, so I can't give an accurate comparison with regard to power loss with the addition of the canalizer. I can say that I will still have them on electric airplanes, though. I actually made mine with an airfoiled pylon and wing that has the same airfoil as the wing. I don't know that it makes any difference having an airfoil versus a flat plate, and honestly, I went the route I did because I thought it would look better and I could make it stronger and probably lighter than a flat plate.
2. More rudder power. I normally fly with quite a bit of rudder throw even in my normal flight condition because I like a balanced feel between the amount of input it takes to get the airplane to do something when the rudder and elevator is used together. I cut my rudder throw in half, and still had more rudder power than I had before. I can do a pretty tight knife edge loop on low rate.
3. Reduction in mixing. I got rid of all of the mixing I had in the airplane, and it was pretty damn close. I will trim the airplane out more this spring/summer. Winters here in central Illinois are not very conducive to flying model airplanes, I've unfortunately found.
4. Somewhere else to put stickers. This is self explanatory.
5. Table for placing drink prior to flight. This is self explanatory.
6. Cool conversation piece. Also self explanatory.
All in all, I think it was totally worth it. After flying an airplane design for five years without it, I think I have a pretty good gauge as to what it does. They are very effective and quite worth the effort. I thought I had a picture of mine on my phone, but I don't have the SD card that it was saved to on here. I'll see if I can dig mine up and post it here. I know this thread is about Akiba's new airplane, but I'm good at continuing tangents and derailments.
Carry on.
You left out number 7. Makes a nice handle.
Arch
That's what cabane struts are for!
04-26-2011 | 07:33 AM
#42
Senior Member
My Feedback: (25)
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Akibas Newest Ride
ORIGINAL: tommy s
Ryan
What was the incidence on the canalizer relative to the wing ?
Tommy
Ryan
What was the incidence on the canalizer relative to the wing ?
Tommy
The canalizer is set to zero degrees relative to the wing. I always fly my wing at zero anyway.
04-26-2011 | 08:16 AM
#43
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: boca raton,
FL
RE: Akibas Newest Ride
I've posted in the past and Don S. backed up my observations regarding the T-Cannalizer and what flight effects it has. I've flown these planes with and without: Abbra, Aggressor, Osmose, Passort (4 of them). I now own an Axiome, Axiome +, and Passport.
For an F3A pilot, the smaller original T cannalizer, and now the larger T-wing, all offer pretty much the main desired effect. The plane maintains heading during rolls better, and the integrated roll maneuvers become much easier to perform, and keep on heading. The Axiomes are the finest plane I've ever flown, especially when transitioning through rolls and performing the integrated rolling loops. Power on the way up, power off on the way down, and the planes go through these maneuvers like butter. The Axiomes are large where they need to be, but smaller in the frontal area. I was surprised how clean they fly. Also, they can perform very crisp/sharp rolling elements flown as low airspeed, showing little fuselage angle. They have a huge flight envelope.
They (T-Cannalizers) do a bunch other things, like adding positive pitching moment with rudder. Also, can yaw-pivot on a dime and leave change. Left and Right rudder start to feel the same (although Right is still more powerful due to R-thrust) For the current F3A sequences, they just make them easier to fly.
I would be interested to fly a contra-rotating setup, but honestly, I don't see where I'm fighting Right Thrust now. Its not going to wind correct itself so it will still come down to pilot skill in the end.
Thanks,
Jim W.
For an F3A pilot, the smaller original T cannalizer, and now the larger T-wing, all offer pretty much the main desired effect. The plane maintains heading during rolls better, and the integrated roll maneuvers become much easier to perform, and keep on heading. The Axiomes are the finest plane I've ever flown, especially when transitioning through rolls and performing the integrated rolling loops. Power on the way up, power off on the way down, and the planes go through these maneuvers like butter. The Axiomes are large where they need to be, but smaller in the frontal area. I was surprised how clean they fly. Also, they can perform very crisp/sharp rolling elements flown as low airspeed, showing little fuselage angle. They have a huge flight envelope.
They (T-Cannalizers) do a bunch other things, like adding positive pitching moment with rudder. Also, can yaw-pivot on a dime and leave change. Left and Right rudder start to feel the same (although Right is still more powerful due to R-thrust) For the current F3A sequences, they just make them easier to fly.
I would be interested to fly a contra-rotating setup, but honestly, I don't see where I'm fighting Right Thrust now. Its not going to wind correct itself so it will still come down to pilot skill in the end.
Thanks,
Jim W.
04-26-2011 | 04:32 PM
#46
My Feedback: (2)
RE: Akibas Newest Ride
I wonder if the T-cAnalizer is acting like a Winglet to the fuse?
If it is helping the fuse lift... not necessarily by virtue of makeing the rudder yaw more effectively, but making the fuselage less inefficient at lifting????
I may have to put a CFD model t'gether and do some Flow-Viz!!
If it is helping the fuse lift... not necessarily by virtue of makeing the rudder yaw more effectively, but making the fuselage less inefficient at lifting????
I may have to put a CFD model t'gether and do some Flow-Viz!!
04-26-2011 | 04:55 PM
#47
RE: Akibas Newest Ride
The T canalizer does work, and very well, by reducing the P Factor the air gets to the vertical stab and rudder on both sides with better laminar flow, so the rudder is more effective because of "cleaner" air on it; And on any pitch angle different than straight and level flight it helps on the rolls a lot, more like a biplane, I fly the Axiome and the Amethyst, and they are very similar in flight.
I flew my Osmose without the canalizer and it flew like crap! so the canalizer does a lot, I needed to increase the rudder travel to almost if not double throw without it.
Jim, I think you flew your Osmose without the canalizer if I'm not mistaken?
Best regards
Alejandro P.
I flew my Osmose without the canalizer and it flew like crap! so the canalizer does a lot, I needed to increase the rudder travel to almost if not double throw without it.
Jim, I think you flew your Osmose without the canalizer if I'm not mistaken?
Best regards
Alejandro P.
04-27-2011 | 12:30 PM
#48
My Feedback: (121)
RE: Akibas Newest Ride
Hi Guys,
How crucial is the location of the 'T' on the fuselage. Looking at many photos it seems the placement can vary from above (or even forward of) the CG to behind the wing TE. Also,
how significant is the height of the canalizer/winglet above the fuselage and/or wing C/L?
Thanks!
-Will
PS wind tunnel testing would be terrific, but who has access to one for free...? We need a graduate aerodynamics student to do his thesis on the 'T', there are certainly a lot of potential variables.
How crucial is the location of the 'T' on the fuselage. Looking at many photos it seems the placement can vary from above (or even forward of) the CG to behind the wing TE. Also,
how significant is the height of the canalizer/winglet above the fuselage and/or wing C/L?
Thanks!
-Will
PS wind tunnel testing would be terrific, but who has access to one for free...? We need a graduate aerodynamics student to do his thesis on the 'T', there are certainly a lot of potential variables.
04-27-2011 | 03:45 PM
#49
My Feedback: (34)
RE: Akibas Newest Ride
Ideally I think you want it at or just slightly behind the center of pressure on the airframe. That's often hard to calculate, but a safe bet is a couple inches behind the CG. Any further rearward, and it starts to act like more vertical fin, reducing rudder authority. Further forward, or worse AHEAD of the center of pressure and it destabilizes the airplane in yaw.
04-27-2011 | 04:31 PM
#50
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Manizales, COLOMBIA
RE: Akibas Newest Ride
I think the T can is necessary evil.
on its good sides you have:
very powerful rudder effect (see the picture of my rudder on full deflection on normal condition ) with this rudder I make all the P-11 and F-11 secuence (included the integrated roll on the M, the half integrated roll on the loop on the P-11, the rolling circle, etc). I only go to high rate rudder on the stall turns
since the deflection is so small, you almost can not see rudder corrections. this is good because you almost can not see the tail moving on corrections
performance on integrated rolls is awesome
but on its downsides:another surface to trim: incidence, position, height.
Tcan increased in my case the required mixing if your plane has rudd to ail and/or rudd to elev. I fly a Xigris C1 and it's former owner tried several sizes, geometries and positions, and he ended up reducing the size of the original ZN line tcan to around 60% span, and left it tied to the cockpit where the original one was installed. guess who was the owner!!!
this Xigris C1 with Tcan is trimmed using triangulation method and is free of mixing without the Tcan and once you install it, it starts to tuck to the canopy and to roll on knife edge flight.
after all and all, i use it and will keep using it so far
hope this helps
Marcelo Velez
on its good sides you have:
very powerful rudder effect (see the picture of my rudder on full deflection on normal condition ) with this rudder I make all the P-11 and F-11 secuence (included the integrated roll on the M, the half integrated roll on the loop on the P-11, the rolling circle, etc). I only go to high rate rudder on the stall turns
since the deflection is so small, you almost can not see rudder corrections. this is good because you almost can not see the tail moving on corrections
performance on integrated rolls is awesome
but on its downsides:another surface to trim: incidence, position, height.
Tcan increased in my case the required mixing if your plane has rudd to ail and/or rudd to elev. I fly a Xigris C1 and it's former owner tried several sizes, geometries and positions, and he ended up reducing the size of the original ZN line tcan to around 60% span, and left it tied to the cockpit where the original one was installed. guess who was the owner!!!
this Xigris C1 with Tcan is trimmed using triangulation method and is free of mixing without the Tcan and once you install it, it starts to tuck to the canopy and to roll on knife edge flight.
after all and all, i use it and will keep using it so far
hope this helps
Marcelo Velez
