Drooped ailerons

aktango58 said:

For a certified plane,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Thanks

George

Click to expand...

haahahahahahahahhahahhahah :lol: What does it cost to get an STC? multiply that and testing costs x3 and add the cost of an aircraft with the mods. .....uh, um, uh, you do the math.


Gander, of course simplicity is best. "....The less gadgets to deal with the better...." But if nobody played with this stuff, it'd keep us in the 35 HP J-3 era. You wanna be in the 35HP J-3 era, the Helio era, or what? Guys have tried very short span ailerons on Cubs with long flaps.......ain't good. I'm sure there is a balance somewhere, but doing a Helio-looking Cub wing has been tried and failed. Works for the Helio, but not the Cub. I personally think Jerry Burr is onto something with his short flaps (stock flaps in the propwash), and long, drooped ailerons.

There is something coming down the pike that oughtta be very cool. I can't let it out of the bag. John, I believe you know. We will see.

I would disagree with you dave. I sure wont have too many bells and whistles on my plane, but that is what is great about exp planes. I think there is also much to be gained in airfoil choice and modification. It seems most are just using prepurchased ribs which limits them, perhaps if a better airfoil was used there would not have the need for such complex mods. It would nice to see more people make there own ribs and play with where the center of lift on the wing is vs the fuselage i bet these foils that some say are inferior would excell in max gross performance. most foils that people say didnt work you must look at how it was matched to the fuselage and whos ribs they were using is a limiting factor, we need more fabricating and less assembling.

Dave Calkins said:

aktango58 said:

For a certified plane,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Thanks

George

Click to expand...

haahahahahahahahhahahhahah :lol: What does it cost to get an STC? multiply that and testing costs x3 and add the cost of an aircraft with the mods. .....uh, um, uh, you do the math.


Gander, of course simplicity is best. "....The less gadgets to deal with the better...." But if nobody played with this stuff, it'd keep us in the 35 HP J-3 era. You wanna be in the 35HP J-3 era, the Helio era, or what? Guys have tried very short span ailerons on Cubs with long flaps.......ain't good. I'm sure there is a balance somewhere, but doing a Helio-looking Cub wing has been tried and failed. Works for the Helio, but not the Cub. I personally think Jerry Burr is onto something with his short flaps (stock flaps in the propwash), and long, drooped ailerons.

There is something coming down the pike that oughtta be very cool. I can't let it out of the bag. John, I believe you know. We will see.

Click to expand...

Is there an STC for the droop aileron???

I thought there was. That mod was the one I was wondering.

Cubcrafters use to sell one but i believe they no longer doo.

gander said:

I would disagree with you dave.

Click to expand...

Disagree on which point?

Also, I said earlier that Long flap/very short span aileron has been tried and failed. I must say that I don't recall that a roll-spoiler was incorporated, nor do I know what airfoil section was used.

Also, a very good flap system may void my whole argument...........but as soon as you have a 'better mousetrap' (better flap), wouldn't it make sense to use it on the whole trailing edge (droop ailerons) and gain high lift/slow speed performance over the whole wing?

About gadgets......again, we could all be flying souped up 35 HP J-3's. "...WOW, you got a 65HORSE in that thing? Must be like a rocket!!"

My whole reason to care about stuff like this is to have a VERY slow flyer.

You could look at Valdez last year and make some assumptions that we've found the limit on Cub slowflight. Greg-Mauleguy in his stock round tipped winged-experimental "Bridge"(...uncovered tail) VS MikeO's RedneckCub with lots of bells and whistles and they were pretty close........

........there are several elements that each has left "on the table", that were not incorporated and that promise better slow flight performance.

.....We haven't seen the slowest flying Cub-type aircraft yet!

Your right Dave, lots of unknowns and not everybody has the same purpose with a plane. Some want the Valdez contest style and some want a working plane that is more simple. Both are great and as we all know we are splittin hairs on these mods because a stock lite weight cub will go most any where a modified machine will go.

Thanks everyone for your input it's great to have this forum to discuss all the options, pros , cons, and then be able to build a wing for your mission with some confidence that it will work for your application, I have made a decision on what I will build, but of course it will probably change, but for now I'm off and running thanks again everyone.

DW

gander said:

because a stock lite weight cub will go most any where a modified machine will go.

Click to expand...

If you assume that, then you will discover that you are mistaken. And I haven't mentioned how the new ideas will positively affect float-performance, not just Valdez-style. Working, Standard-category airplanes? Please, let's not argue the application to that. The application is valid even if not yet STC'ed, and there are lots of 'certified' Cubs running around 'technically unairworthy', and/or just 'ratty' if you want to argue that. If you want simple, simply limit yourself to it.

DAVE

PS, until a couple years ago, I thought I had flown, owned and been around enough Cubs and Cub-Drivers to have a pretty good idea of what a Cub can do.

Around the same time I got the chance to fly the WORST flying stock -18 I've ever flown, and also to fly and develop a highly-modified airplane that exhibits the best in-flight maneuvering and slow-flight ability I have experienced, with plenty of avenues to develop more performance left in the design.

These are the reasons I maintain my position.