Hi everyone -
I was out dialing in a plane today trying to optimize it's balance and handling for best high alpha performance.
Since Stephan wrote this great article http://migsrus.blogspot.ca/2014/12/trimming-rc-airplane-determining-cg.html , I have been trimming all my planes using this method and have noticed a much more responsive and balanced plane as a result as well as my CG and components being moved back significantly. I had obviously just grown used to flying my planes far too nose heavy and didn't really notice until Stephan educated me on these new methods of properly finding CG and trimming the plane for a more balanced and maneuverable setup. Big thank you to Stephan once again... :)
The planes all rotate much better in all axes which makes general handling and aerobatics much more fun and responsive.
However, as the weight has been moved back and the rotation made easier, I have also noticed the affect of prop wash in high alpha has become more pronounced, especially on the Mig I was flying today.
Stephan and I have both written articles that might help understand better what we mean about the affects of prop wash in high alpha
http://migsrus.blogspot.ca/2014/08/mig29-v4m3e3-hi-alpha-testing.html
http://migsrus.blogspot.ca/2014/08/the-high-alpha-right-turn.html
So today as I was dialing in this plane, I found that right turns in high alpha were a real challenge and that if I took my thumb off the rudder stick, it would do a left turn on it's own, completing a full circle in about 25 ft. So I suppose I could just turn left all day, but that gets pretty boring after awhile and doesn't challenge my skills much. So I fought with it, had the tail slide around pretty aggressively a few times as the rudder bit too aggressively in right turns and at one point over controlled/dumb thumbed my way into the ground. So a bit of a nose "gonk", my pride hurt more than my plane, it will be easily fixable.
But as I did my short, solitary "walk of shame", I started wondering if there was some way I could put a setting in my radio to help offset the effects of prop wash to make high alpha a bit more manageable and right turns not so difficult.
I use a Turnigy 9x radio with er9x firmware, so it is far more capable than I will probably ever utilize, but it is pretty versatile for the price.
So at first I thought about having a switch where when I started high alpha I could select preset rudder trim to the right. This would help, but would then reduce my rudder travel to the right if I needed it (which I knew I would). It is also another switch to select in addition to spoilerons which I like to use for high alpha to help keep the plane more stable and the nose up a little higher without too much elevator/elevon deflection. Not a good option as too many switches spells trouble for my limited skills.
Then I thought, why not have the spoilerons deflect differently? In other words, have the right spoileron deflect a bit more, helping to keep the plane from pulling left all the time. I'm sure others have thought of this and use it, but honestly I never have heard or read about anyone using it. I have always been locked into the paradigm that both spoilerons have to be deflected the same amount in high alpha, drilled into me by whoever had my attention at the time when I was still learning high alpha.
So as I looked at the blemished nose on my plane I thought, what the heck, I've had one crash already, what is the worst that could happen?
So since I can adjust the "weight" or percentage of the spoileron deflection individually in each of the "aileron/spoileron" servos without affecting how the aileron works when spoilerons are not employed, I started off with 10% more weight on the right spoileron than the left. I should add that this plane requires very little spoileron deflection for good high alpha angle of attack (AOA) and stability, actually only about 1/4" deflection. So this 10% difference did help, but I felt more could be done. So through several flights, I increased it by 5% at a time until I had 30% more "weight" on the right spoileron than the left.
Although not eliminating the effects of prop wash completely, it makes high alpha handling much smoother and more relaxing even. The plane still drifts slightly to the left, but would take about 100 ft to do a full circle on it's own if I let it go and for about 80% of the time flies pretty straight with no right rudder input, requiring just the odd minor correction now and then instead of constant right rudder input like I needed without "differential spoilerons".
This setup made right turns much easier, it still occasionally got hung up/delayed, but about 80% of the time, it only needed gentle right rudder input to come around to the right and it responded almost right away instead of having considerable delay like often happened without the "differential spoilerons".
However, as my sage friend from Alabama (Stephan) has often said, aerodynamics is all about compromise, change one thing, it can often affect another. So there is a caution I will pass along if you try this that I learned today (didn't result in a crash, just a little more excitement than I wanted at the time... :/). If I got too slow or didn't have the power setting up high enough when I deployed these differential spoilerons, it would pull to the right and drop the right wing.
I have been able to alleviate some of this again with my radio. In the er9x firmware I can set the speed with which the function deploys, so I slowed the right spoileron down about 30%, meaning it would take a couple seconds longer to fully deploy than the left one, making for a more balanced transition into high alpha. This didn't mean once established I could get lazy, as it would still drop a wing or pull right if I got too slow with too little power, but once established, the improvement in handling is well worth the risk in my experience.
So now basically I have 1/4" deflection on my left spoileron and about 3/8" deflection on my right spoileron, doesn't seem like much, but it is a 50% increase in deflection to help with high alpha prop wash.
So if you have a radio that allows for this type of adjustment and have noticed this constant "drift to the left/difficulty turning right" with your planes in high alpha, I encourage you to try it or think about it. Start off high obviously to allow for recovery if it goes wonky on you and I would suggest starting off with a small difference working up in very small increments until you find what you like. Just because 30% worked for me on this plane, doesn't mean it will work on all planes or that it will work for you, but even with the slight risk, I mention above, it was well worth the reward with much smoother overall handling and performance in high alpha.
Cheers,
Scott
North American Mig Consortium (NAMC) was formed to share ideas, build techniques and test results in pursuit of a park jet that suits our flying styles. This additionally will be a forum to freely post and share ideas and have a lot of fun! If you don't have gmail or google accounts and want to send us questions, please do so at scott@migsrus.com. Your e-mails may be re-posted in the blog to benefit other followers. Puto, Consilium, Test et Convalidandum; Think, Design, Test, and Validate
Search This Blog
Translate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Scott,
ReplyDeleteIt really is amazing what a difference flying a properly balanced plane makes. At least you only crashed once, I crashed twice testing the new Mig! All crashes were low altitude testing my skills in high alpha. I like your idea of differential spoilerons to counteract the torque. I wonder if it would be more "stable" to program in elevon mix since they are in thrust vectoring mode. Like you, I've barely touched or even come to understand the possibilities of programming my radio.
Our experience as well as others is that nose heavy is more conducive to tooling around in high alpha. Thinking about it though, I'll bet the relative ground speed for a nose heavy plane vs balanced at the same high angle. Faster airspeed would then translate to more over the wings and greater stability with less rock. I did feel like high alpha with my balanced plane was a little bit more slow motion, but with it came stalls. I definitely will not be doing any high alpha with a 2200kv motor anymore. Not enough punch to get out of trouble.
As always, fascinating stuff and lot of fun while learning a lot about design and aerodynamics.
Thanks for the compliment on dialing in a plane. I just Googled away on CG and found the arc, glide and inverted tests in different posts.
Keep up the good work,
How about a Roll Tide Roll
Stephan
Hi Stephan -
DeleteYou could try the "elevon" mix, would that be something you would select on a switch when you select spoilers? It might be worth a try, whatever would work best for you.
I wanted something that was "dumbed down" enough for me and would only be something that would appear when I really wanted to do high alpha, so decided on the "differential spoilerons", that way I only get this when I am committed to doing high alpha and it doesn't affect any of my other settings in the flight regime.
I don't think I was holding any higher groundspeed with my battery moved forward today to get better high alpha stability, in fact because I was able to hold the nose higher with less wing rock, it was about the same speed if not slightly slower than with the CG back further.
I have found that although it is "super cool" to do low high alpha (sounds like some kind of oxymoron... :/), I like trying it too, once I get down into ground effect (approximately 1.5 wingspan lengths or about 3.5-4 ft off the ground for me) that the plane can get more unstable in high alpha and the rudders become less effective, maybe because of prop wash and turbulence bouncing up off the ground? Not sure. It is definitely fun to try, but not without it's risks in my experience, I find about shoulder to eye level 5-6 ft off the ground to be the most stable and allow me to really see what is going on with my plane in high alpha, but then I always seem to want to go lower, can't help myself... :/
ROLL TIDE ROLL!
Cheers,
Scott
Scott, 30% differential. I've used 2 to 3% aileron differential on .90 size sport planes and it made a huge difference. Definitely the higher percentage is required at lower speeds of high alpha. Very cool. Sooooo... Dialing in a plane today in the great white north? :). Chilly?
ReplyDeleteThank you both for the great blog. I'm still digesting Stephan's CoG / CoL article where I was looking for a sum of moments discussion. Great, thought-provoking articles! Thank you!
For sum of moments I'd have to go back to night school! I'm already stretching the limits!
DeleteThanks for the kind words,
Stephan
I do have a powerpoint style "lecture" I will eventually get up on YouTube.
DeleteStephan
Thanks Dave. I guess it seems like a lot, but I already have the throw mechanically reduced on the elevon/spoileron servo by 50%. The 30% difference in weight in my er9x transmitter ended up being only 1/8" of difference in the deflection of the two spoilerons.
DeleteProp wash effect on the vertical stabilizers in high alpha seems to be much more exaggerated in these mid mount "prop in slot" park jets than it might be in most planes, so I think takes a bit more opposite control to counteract. What I found today seemed to work well.
It was a bit chilly when I got to the field, about 32F, but we have a wood stove in the club house you may have seen in some of my videos, so first order of business is get a fire on first, then start flying, then I can go inside every few flights to warm up the hands if necessary, works out pretty well... :) Overall the winter weather here on Vancouver Island is actually pretty mild and lots of good calm days to practice high alpha and just plain fly, I'm pretty blessed.
Thanks as always for the kind remarks. Did you get a chance to maiden your Mig as of yet?
Cheers,
Scott
Scott,
DeleteNo maiden yet. My work is keeping me away from building. I'm hoping to work on the plane in between holiday meals and adult beverages.
I'm going to go ahead and use the Sullivan Products flexible pushrods for the ailerons. I figure I can position the servos in-board (lower polar moment!) and locate the control horns exactly where I want them.
Stephan, your c.g. tests remind me of some of the techniques that RC Pattern competitors developed to get a plane to be neutral in all flight regimes. I'll look to see if there is any description in Dave Scott's books. Most of the pattern techniques had a lot of maneuvers that reduced the number of variables and then required good observation, just like what you both do!
Flying in New York has been possible over the last week or so if I fly quickly. Certainly the benefit of electric park flyers.
Thanks again for the great articles and discussion!
Dave
Dave,
DeleteI had a pattern plane....
Why I fly foam now.
I look forward to the description from Dave Scott's books. The more I'm in the this hobby, the more I realize how much "fluff" non-evidence practice there is. As we say in medicine, an n=1 is not a data set.
Stephan
Sounds great, Dave, that is the nice thing about having the fixed horizontal stabilizer setup that RCP put on the Mig29 V4, you have lots of flexibility with elevon control horn location. You no longer have to worry about having enough clearance between the front "balancer" and the side of the fuselage like you do with full flying elevons.
DeleteAs long as the aileron doesn't interfere with the pushrods/servos depending on where you put them life is good. Stephan and I have found that as long as at least 3/4" of the wing is left static and attached to the fuselage at the root, then there should never be any conflict between aileron/pushrod/servo.
Good luck getting it finished off and maidened... :)
Cheers,
Scott
Dave,
DeleteI ordered Dave Scott's book. One of the sample pages on the internet talked about wing center of pressure and Cg. I experienced this the other day sorting a new prototype where the addition of KFs changed the COP and made the plane "squirrelly" until I changed the Cg. I'm looking forward to reading his book. Thanks for the tip.
Stephan