Mechanics of Elevator Trim. In Detail.

On Jun 18, 11:12 am, Gig 601Xl Builder <wrgiac...@REMOVE**********>
wrote:
> I love it when great minds come together.

Yeah, and electric/electronic chopper that can
sit in your backyard, taking up minimal space
that you fly with a flick of a switch quietly so the
old bag next door can't hear it over her vibrator.

I'm thinking contra-rotating multiple (bi-plane or triplane)
helo blades for yaw control, and I'm still working on
pitch...easy to do, but's what's best??

I'm also lookin' at an emergency chute that can
pop off the top for a 1/2 assed decent, so we might
eliminate pitch control on the blades, and make it
cheaper and simpler, in case of failure, than having
to do reverse auto gyroration.

I bet we could form a team of fella's who could create
a Limited Liabilty Corporation. That's how Boeing began,
21 guys as I recall.

I think we should start a new thread and put this
product together.
What do you think?
Ken S. Tucker

On Jun 18, 2:01 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder <wrgiac...@REMOVE**********>
wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 11:12 am, Gig 601Xl Builder <wrgiac...@REMOVE**********>
> > wrote:
> >> I love it when great minds come together.
>
> > What do you think?
> > Ken S. Tucker
>
> Ken, since you asked I think first and foremost that you have no
> appreciation for sarcasm. Second, I think your helo wouldn't work for
> way to many reasons to count.

I flew the prototypes they work!
Check out it out for yourself.
Hell, I'll even send you one.
Ken

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote

> Yup, electronics/electrical is the wave of the future,
> and that's from a guy who prefers crank windows to
> them thar fancy power windows in cars!
> From satellite technology, to your hard-drive motors,
> to auto focusing cameras...we're in the digital servo-
> -age. May dinosaurs R.I.P.
> Ken

It will be difficult to compete with mechanical actuation as far as
reliability vs. cost in a product meant for the consumer market, and in a
critical application such as movement of control surfaces.

Satellite technology won't be cheap enough for GA, and I've had enough
hard-drive, camera, and consumer electronics problems to know I don't want
that level of reliability in an aircraft. If your camera refuses to focus
properly, nobody dies.

Our aircraft uses servos in the autopilot system. In the last 16 years
we've had both the pitch and trim servos fail. Consider the consequences of
that if the servos were the primary means of control.

"Le Chaud Lapin" <jaibuduvin@**********> wrote

[Servos are used in many applications, some of them borderline hostile
(certainly more hostile than Earth's atmosphere).]

Sure, but you won't find any of those in a GA aircraft - they probably cost
more than the entire aircraft does right now without them!

[If the failure rate of electro-mechanical components in aviation is
significantly higher than the failure rate in other industries, the
aviation designer is mostly likely doing s/she should not be doing.]

Everything you propose is likely possible, or may be possible some day - who
can say. Good luck to you though - I hope your design is a success.

On Jun 19, 10:15 am, "BDS" <skyh...@************> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote
>
> > Yup, electronics/electrical is the wave of the future,
> > and that's from a guy who prefers crank windows to
> > them thar fancy power windows in cars!
> > From satellite technology, to your hard-drive motors,
> > to auto focusing cameras...we're in the digital servo-
> > -age. May dinosaurs R.I.P.
> > Ken
>
> It will be difficult to compete with mechanical actuation as far as
> reliability vs. cost in a product meant for the consumer market, and in a
> critical application such as movement of control surfaces.
>
> Satellite technology won't be cheap enough for GA, and I've had enough
> hard-drive, camera, and consumer electronics problems to know I don't want
> that level of reliability in an aircraft. If your camera refuses to focus
> properly, nobody dies.
>
> Our aircraft uses servos in the autopilot system. In the last 16 years
> we've had both the pitch and trim servos fail. Consider the consequences of
> that if the servos were the primary means of control.

I studied your post carefully, and I agree.
The system, works like,
......actuators......
a<--/\/\/---/\/\/--->b
.......1........2..........

True actuator #1 can fail, then actuator #2
still works, then actuator #1 is replaced.
Asking the question about the F-16, "fly-by-
wire" fighter, dated 1972, do we have failures
due to the electonics and servos?
Ken

On Jun 19, 1:19 pm, Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@**********> wrote:
> On the one hand, some complain that rate of increase in pilot
> population is too low. On the other, things that would lead to more
> pilots getting into the air are frowned upon (ultra-commoditized
> components).

We see new designs every year. More fancy electronic autopilots
and nav stuff, more engine FADEC stuff, more safety stuff like
parachutes. But fewer people still fly, because all of that fancy
stuff is so expensive. Most end up flying 35 or 50 year old airplanes
because that's what they can afford.
Airliners have had fly-by-wire for some time now but they're no
cheaper than they were to fly when they were mechanical. In fact, it
takes an army of highly-paid avionics techs to keep them safe and
flyable. It's deregulation of the industry in the 1970s that brought
air travel within the reach of the common man, not electronics, and
the resulting tiny margin of profit for airlines in a highly
competitive environment has resulted in many bankruptcies since then.

Dan

On Jun 19, 2:32 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:

> True actuator #1 can fail, then actuator #2
> still works, then actuator #1 is replaced.
> Asking the question about the F-16, "fly-by-
> wire" fighter, dated 1972, do we have failures
> due to the electonics and servos?
> Ken


Don't ask me. Ask the USAF about the failure rate and resultant
bailouts and aircraft losses when they quit. Ask them how many
maintenance hours are spent on each airplane for each hour of flight.
And then compare that with the maintenance the average privately-owned
lightplane gets.

Dan

this Le Chaud kid doesn't even lie a good game. New prime mover, new
airform, loves to hear himself type.





On Jun 19, 4:44 pm, Dan_Thomas_nos...@*****.com wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2:32 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > True actuator #1 can fail, then actuator #2
> > still works, then actuator #1 is replaced.
> > Asking the question about the F-16, "fly-by-
> > wire" fighter, dated 1972, do we have failures
> > due to the electonics and servos?
> > Ken
>
> Don't ask me. Ask the USAF about the failure rate and resultant
> bailouts and aircraft losses when they quit. Ask them how many
> maintenance hours are spent on each airplane for each hour of flight.
> And then compare that with the maintenance the average privately-owned
> lightplane gets.
>
> Dan

On Jun 19, 1:44 pm, Dan_Thomas_nos...@*****.com wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2:32 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > True actuator #1 can fail, then actuator #2
> > still works, then actuator #1 is replaced.
> > Asking the question about the F-16, "fly-by-
> > wire" fighter, dated 1972, do we have failures
> > due to the electonics and servos?
> > Ken
>
> Don't ask me. Ask the USAF about the failure rate and resultant
> bailouts and aircraft losses when they quit. Ask them how many
> maintenance hours are spent on each airplane for each hour of flight.
> And then compare that with the maintenance the average privately-owned
> lightplane gets.
> Dan

I'm a brat who did "points" on old ICE's, adjusted
carbs...then along comes electronic ignition and
fuel injection and my car starts easily at -20F.
So these advances are definitely reducing my
maintenance. Wife just bought a Gran Caravan
that's scary with electronics, (she loves it), but
I'm keeping a real close eye on all them gizmo's,
so far...excellent...after nearly 2 years.
Ken

In article <vlx6k.5975$N87.2169@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>,
"Allen" <ha_smith57@************> wrote:

> This guy might be beating you to the punch!
>
> From the June 19 AvWebflash:
>
> Florida Researcher Proposes Wingless Flight
>
> An engineer at the University of Florida has unveiled a design for a "flying
> saucer" that can take off vertically, hover, and fly, and it has no wings or
> propeller -- it doesn't have any moving parts at all. "This is a very novel
> concept, and if it's successful, it will be revolutionary," said Subrata
> Roy, the ship's inventor, who applied for a patent on it last week. "If
> successful, we will have an aircraft, a saucer and a helicopter all in one
> embodiment." The saucer is propelled by a force called magnetohydrodynamics,
> which is created when a current or a magnetic field is passed through a
> fluid. By interacting with the atmosphere, the force is able to create lift
> and momentum and provides stability against wind gusts. The ship's surface
> is partially hollow and continuously curved, like an electromagnetic flying
> bundt pan. Unfortunately, it seems the technique is likely to work better in
> space, where pesky things like gravity and drag are minimized.

MHD, nothing new there.
That concept has been around for more than 50 years.
The guy must not have read "**** TRACY" cartoons when he was young.
MHD is what powered ****'s friend Diet Smith's Smith Industries one-man
pods and space coupe.