Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

601xl aeilerons

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith601-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

K Dilks

Joined: 22 Sep 2008
Posts: 108
Location: UK

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:41 pm Post subject: 601xl aeilerons

So following todays little flood of mails about the heavy ailerons , what if any mods have people done to make this easier?.



  I flew a Tecnam JF 2002 at the weekend and the ailerons are the similar but with balance weight extending forward. I wonder why CH has not put this on and if it could be done so without great modifications.



 Kit gets here 27november ...........

_________________
Back home .................

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 2:09 am Post subject: 601xl aeilerons

I think you are discussing two different problems rather than one.



The counter balance is probably there to prevent diverging mechanical 

oscillation, known as flutter, that can destroy the plane.  C. H. 

designed his ailerons and all the control surfaces so they are not 

prone to this problem.  If you don't want to take my word for it, and 

his, this is a wonderful area for extended discussion some other time.



Your point about "Fixing" the heavy ailerons is an interesting 

one.  It presumes there is something wrong with them the way they 

are.  I don't agree with this point of view.  Let me explain . . .



The notion that there should be "Harmony" in airplane controls seems 

to be an idea unrelated to the way real airplanes function and real 

pilots fly.  It seems to come from people who are better magazine 

article writers than pilots and nearly always shows up in airplane 

flight reviews.  This is the notion that all three axis controls 

should respond with similar movement to the same input 

forces.  Perhaps this is a big deal for aerobatic planes that get 

jerked around in the sky, but for most planes it is not even an 

issue. What is an issue is that the pilot can get the desired 

aircraft response rather than some arbitrary control stick movement.



All planes respond to force applied to a control input with movement 

around the indicated axis.  It is this aircraft rotation response to 

force that is important rather than its response to control 

movement.  In many planes and many control axes there is no 

discernable movement at all of the control input device.  This is the 

case with the Zodiac aileron control.



Of course, the above is just my personal opinion.  I expect there to 

be disagreement on the harmony point.  To give you a direct answer to 

your question, I am not aware of anyone redesigning the controls on 

any Zodiac to allow the stick to move more easily.



Paul

XL getting close

do not archive



At 10:41 PM 10/22/2008, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  So following todays little flood of mails about the heavy ailerons , 

what if any mods have people done to make this easier?.



   I flew a Tecnam JF 2002 at the weekend and the ailerons are the 

 similar but with balance weight extending forward. I wonder why CH 

 has not put this on and if it could be done so without great modifications.



  Kit gets here 27november ...........

ideaz1(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:43 am Post subject: 601xl aeilerons

 	  Quote: 	
		   I think you are discussing two different problems rather than one.


	


                  No, not really... Heavy ailerons. Maybe there are 2 

solutions (or many more).



 	  Quote: 	
		   The counter balance is probably there to prevent diverging mechanical 

 oscillation, known as flutter, that can destroy the plane.  C. H. designed 

 his ailerons and all the control surfaces so they are not prone to this 

 problem.  If you don't want to take my word for it, and his, this is a 

 wonderful area for extended discussion some other time.


	


Sorry to sound argumentative, but the balancing of control surfaces is to 

releive the control forces required. Just picture a much larger aircraft 

with the same setup as the XL and you would have a hard time controling the 

plane at all; and if I'm not mistaken we can discuss this any time we want.



 	  Quote: 	
		   Your point about "Fixing" the heavy ailerons is an interesting one.  It 

 presumes there is something wrong with them the way they are.  I don't 

 agree with this point of view.  Let me explain . . .



 The notion that there should be "Harmony" in airplane controls seems to be 

 an idea unrelated to the way real airplanes function and real pilots fly. 

 It seems to come from people who are better magazine article writers than 

 pilots and nearly always shows up in airplane flight reviews.


	


GEES! I guess I never knew I wasn't a REAL pilot! Plus all the certificated 

planes I have flown (knot realizing that I didn't know how) had quite well 

balanced controls. Just take a look at the balance weights on a cessna some 

time. And by the way I have yet to write a magazine article but apparently 

those who have may want a word...



 	  Quote: 	
		   This is the notion that all three axis controls should respond with 

 similar movement to the same input forces.  Perhaps this is a big deal for 

 aerobatic planes that get jerked around in the sky, but for most planes it 

 is not even an issue. What is an issue is that the pilot can get the 

 desired aircraft response rather than some arbitrary control stick 

 movement.


	


Maybe you don't think pilot fatigue is an issue but some of us do



 	  Quote: 	
		   All planes respond to force applied to a control input with movement 

 around the indicated axis.  It is this aircraft rotation response to force 

 that is important rather than its response to control movement.  In many 

 planes and many control axes there is no discernable movement at all of 

 the control input device.  This is the case with the Zodiac aileron 

 control.


	


What th...



 	  Quote: 	
		   Of course, the above is just my personal opinion.  I expect there to be 

 disagreement on the harmony point.  To give you a direct answer to your 

 question, I am not aware of anyone redesigning the controls on any Zodiac 

 to allow the stick to move more easily.


	


Well, I am aware of people making mods. There is one XL recently completed 

at my home airport with push-pull tubes rather than cables. I am not aware 

of whether or how much improvement this makes as I have not flown that plane 

but it is certainly part of the multiple solutions to this problem.Also the 

first plane I built had a similar issue which was very successfully 

corrected by moving the hinge point on the ailerons to balance the control 

forces (by the way, this releives the force on every component from the 

aileron all the way to the pilots shoulder!)

Dirk Z



 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Paul

 XL getting close

brianrobertwood(at)gmail.
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:17 am Post subject: 601xl aeilerons

 	  Quote: 	
		  > I think you are discussing two different problems rather than one.



                   No, not really... Heavy ailerons. Maybe there are 2  

 solutions (or many more).




	


Maybe we are discussing one issue, but we are offering solutions that are  

designed to address two issues that are quite distinct,  control forces  

and flutter. There are multiple ways to relieve the control forces,  

including aerodynamic balance, balance tabs, spring tabs, weights, and  

some others I can't remember at the moment.



Flutter is a complex phenonemon that is dependant on balance, speed,  

elasticity, airflow, and probably a host of others that I don't know about  

(I am no engineer). It is often overcome by use of balance weights, as  

well as careful engineering.



Brian in Brazil

Gig Giacona

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: El Dorado Arkansas USA

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:31 am Post subject: Re: 601xl aeilerons

[quote="ideaz1(at)sbcglobal.net]Sorry to sound argumentative, but the balancing of control surfaces is to 

releive the control forces required. Just picture a much larger aircraft 

with the same setup as the XL and you would have a hard time controling the 

plane at all; ...[/quote]



http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/building/controls/Control%20Surface%20Balancing%20in%20Homebuilts.html?



Control Surface Balancing in Homebuilts

Sport Aviation - 12/96

By Tony Bingelis



The obvious question comes to mind. Why balance control surfaces? Do they really need to be balanced?



Well, much seems to depend on the original design and construction of the control surfaces. Well-designed, rigid structures with little or no play in the hinges, control linkages, and trim tabs are less likely to be susceptible to flutter, hence, may not need to be statically balanced.

_________________
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:46 am Post subject: 601xl aeilerons

Hi Brian,

Thank you for your comment.  I think your point of view is very 

valuable.  These issues are related but only distant relatives.

This thread started as a discussion of heavy aileron forces on a demo 

flight.  The counterbalances were added as a possible solution for 

the heavy controls.  My last comment was to try to separate the 

counterbalances from the heavy controls, but your take on this issue 

seems like it is more clear.

I want to try again to distinguish the heavy control issues without 

regard to flutter.

If you move the stick left and right on the ground, it takes a 

significant amount of force to go from one limit to the other.  I 

submit this is a minor issue.

In the air, when you apply a side force to the stick the plane rolls 

very nicely.  However, the stick doesn't move much at all in this 

case.  For a pilot who gets his control feedback from the plane's 

roll attitude this is not an issue.  For a different pilot who 

ignores the plane's attitude and only considers how far the control 

stick moves this is a problem.  I submit that a pilot should gauge 

his actions by the response of the plane's attitude rather than the 

movement of the stick.

Best regards,

Paul

XL getting close

do not archive

At 09:17 AM 10/23/2008, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  >>I think you are discussing two different problems rather than one.

>

>                   No, not really... Heavy ailerons. Maybe there are 2

>solutions (or many more).

Maybe we are discussing one issue, but we are offering solutions that are

designed to address two issues that are quite distinct,  control forces

and flutter. There are multiple ways to relieve the control forces,

including aerodynamic balance, balance tabs, spring tabs, weights, and

some others I can't remember at the moment.

Flutter is a complex phenonemon that is dependant on balance, speed,

elasticity, airflow, and probably a host of others that I don't know about

(I am no engineer). It is often overcome by use of balance weights, as

well as careful engineering.

Brian in Brazil

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:57 am Post subject: 601xl aeilerons

Hi Gig,



I'm confused by your post.



In the first part you say balancing control surfaces is done to 

relieve control pressures.  In the second part you quote Bingelis 

saying you only need to do this to reduce tendency for flutter.



In the aileron case, when you move the stick one aileron goes up and 

the other goes down.  This naturally provides balance from the 

control stick's point of view.  It is true no matter how big the 

plane is.  Said another way, the opposite aileron acts as a counter 

balance.  This addresses the control balance issue without 

considering the flutter issue which, I believe, is more of a single 

control surface issue and requires the local counterbalance you see 

on many higher performance planes.



This is different from the elevator case where there is only one 

moving control surface.  The bigger the elevator the more effort it 

takes, on the ground, to raise it.  In the air, I submit it is the 

airflow over the elevator and how much this is disrupted by a stick 

movement that determines how much force is applied to the pitch axis 

of the plane and how much feedback is applied to the stick.  The 

large forward movement of the plane along with the elevator trim 

keeps the elevator centered before moving the stick.  Still, a 

counterbalance might be installed to reduce flutter tendencies in the 

elevator in some designs.



Paul

XL getting close

do not archive



At 09:31 AM 10/23/2008, you wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  [quote="ideaz1(at)sbcglobal.net]Sorry to sound argumentative, but 

the balancing of control surfaces is to

releive the control forces required. Just picture a much larger aircraft

with the same setup as the XL and you would have a hard time controling the

plane at all; ... 	




http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/building/controls/Control%20Surface%20Balancing%20in%20Homebuilts.html?



Control Surface Balancing in Homebuilts

Sport Aviation - 12/96

By Tony Bingelis



The obvious question comes to mind. Why balance control surfaces? Do 

they really need to be balanced?



Well, much seems to depend on the original design and construction 

of the control surfaces. Well-designed, rigid structures with little 

or no play in the hinges, control linkages, and trim tabs are less 

likely to be susceptible to flutter, hence, may not need to be 

statically balanced.



--------

W.R. &quot;Gig&quot; Giacona

601XL Under Construction


[/quote]

jimandmandy(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:55 am Post subject: 601xl aeilerons

I have made demo flights in three different 601XL aircraft, two Continental powered and one Corvair. My previous experience is mostly C-152's, but also a few hours in the Tomahawk, Diamond Katana and Sonex. My impression of the 601XL is yes, roll control feels a little heavy, but I do not see this as a problem. It took only a few minutes to become familiar with it.

Even large certified transports, such as fly-by-wire Airbus', do not necessarily have equal or even linear control forces in all axes.

Jim LoBue

601XL/Corvair

--- On Thu, 10/23/08, Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net> wrote:

[quote]From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>

Subject: Re: 601xl aeilerons

To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Thursday,  October 23, 2008, 9:44 AM

[quote]--> Zenith601-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>

Hi Brian,

Thank you for your comment.  I think your point of view is very 

valuable.  These issues are related but only distant relatives.

This thread started as a discussion of heavy aileron forces on a demo 

flight.  The counterbalances were added as a possible solution for 

the heavy controls.  My last comment was to try to separate the 

counterbalances from the heavy controls, but your take on this issue 

seems like it is more clear.

I want to try again to distinguish the heavy control issues without 

regard to flutter.

If you move the stick left and right on the ground, it takes a 

significant amount of force to go from one limit to the other.  I 

submit this is a minor issue.

In the air, when you apply a side force to the stick the plane rolls 

very nicely.  However,  the stick doesn't move much at all in this 

case.  For a pilot who gets his control feedback from the plane's 

roll attitude this is not an issue.  For a different pilot who 

ignores the plane's attitude and only considers how far the control 

stick moves this is a problem.  I submit that a pilot should gauge 

his actions by the response of the plane's attitude rather than the 

movement of the stick.

Best regards,

Paul

XL getting close

do not archive

At 09:17 AM 10/23/2008, you wrote:

[quote]>>I think you are discussing two different problems rather than one.

>

>                   No, not really... Heavy ailerons. Maybe there are 2

>solutions (or many more).

Maybe we are discussing one issue, but we are offering solutions that are

designed to address two issues that are quite distinct,  control forces

and flutter. There are multiple ways to [quote][b]

jaybannist(at)cs.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:44 am Post subject: 601xl aeilerons

To add to what Gig and Tony Benglis say, I think that nearly all "add-ons" (such as balance weights, VGs, etc.) are to overcome a not quite perfected design.  Granted, airplane design is really part science, part art. There is ample evidence that not all aeronautical engineers are skillful at blending all the requirements into a fully complete design that requires no "add-ons". Chris Heintz has been designing airplanes for a LONG time. I fully trust him and believe that if he thought aileron balance weights or VGs were necessary, they would have been there. 

 

   

 Jay in Dallas

 

   

 

 --

daveaustin2(at)primus.ca
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:51 pm Post subject: 601xl aeilerons

Just a thought..

You could not break the aeroplane with the way the ailerons are by design, 

at any speed, but you could very easily break it with the sensitive 

elevators at higher speeds.  However, you don't need to have more sensitive 

ailerons for control at any speed, but you certainly need sensitive 

elevators at low speed.

I think that's why Chris designed it the way it is.

Solution is, install roll trim.  I have and have flown many long flights 

without any tiring effect.

Dave Austin  601HDS - 912

Gig Giacona

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: El Dorado Arkansas USA

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:25 am Post subject: Re: 601xl aeilerons

No you are confused by the screwed up quotation of the post I was responding to.



It is my position that the balancing is used to reduce flutter because Bingelis said so.



 	  psm(at)att.net wrote: 	
		  Hi Gig,



I'm confused by your post.



In the first part you say balancing control surfaces is done to 

relieve control pressures.  In the second part you quote Bingelis 

saying you only need to do this to reduce tendency for flutter.

_________________
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR

rpf(at)wi.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:01 am Post subject: 601xl aeilerons

I have to agree with Dave.  I have hingeless ailerons (which I'm sure are 

stiffer than hinged ailerons) and have flown my XL on a number of cross 

country flights, the longest being Wisconsin to California, and the flight 

was not fatiguing at all.



Just telling real life experiences.



Randy  601XL - Jabiru 3300

---

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith601-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum