Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 241 to 273 of 273

Thread: Introducing a J-4 project

  1. #241
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    8,589
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by CharlieN View Post
    With the nice sun out it gives me a chance to get a few more shots of the flap templates.
    Attachment 41876 Attachment 41877
    Charlie, I've been thinking about your flaps. I know that could be dangerous. The purpose of the slot between the flap segments is to convert the higher pressure air below the flap into an accelerated flow over the top of the next surface in order to force the air to stick to the boundary layer following the surface to the trailing edge. In order for this to be efficient the trailing edge of the forward segment needs to hold down and redirect the upward flow. In looking at your pictures it appears as though the higher pressure air flow will just blow straight through the slot without being redirected aft and down. I'm thinking that the gap should be narrower in order for this to function as intended.
    This is why I asked you about a wind tunnel on your computer.

    This function also true on the stock Cub flaps.
    N1PA
    Likes Southern Aero, CharlieN liked this post

  2. #242
    Southern Aero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    kcco/1ga2
    Posts
    141
    Post Thanks / Like
    Charlie

    In my research on gaps in flaps it appears to be about 1 to 1 1/2% chord is standard. (slats and slots too) If you have a double slotted flap the slots would need to be 1/2 as wide if using this "standard". And slots would need to be equal in dimension to keep a larger slot/gap from bleeding more air than the other..... but then it may be desirable to have one flow more than the other. Since they source from the same high pressure air, if one was larger in area than the other it would deprive the smaller one from some flow. I'm sure speed and wing loading could effect these percentages. Also the position of the leading edge radius of the flap has a certain position it needs to be in relative to the end of the structure above. I'm sure there are some engineer types on here that could elaborate on this.
    Last edited by Southern Aero; 03-14-2019 at 05:00 PM.
    ......... It doesn't cost any more to go first class! You just can't stay as long.
    Likes skywagon8a, CharlieN liked this post

  3. #243

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Vermont USA
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like
    Both of you are spot on something I do not feel is fully optimized yet. At this point from the old books I have worked with such as Abbott and Doenhoff's and a few others, these are close. But what does close mean when there has been so much more technology since the books written in the 30's to the 60's.
    I truly do want to get more development on these before they get built. This was one reason I took the chance to cut all these "dolls" out on the CNC router. It is nice to swing the parts and see and measure the slots through the full motion.
    I feel the basic shapes of the airfoils is close considering there are many trains of thought between the shape and size of the foreflap in relation to the main flap.
    A bit over a year ago I changed the airfoil from 12% thick to 13% as well as moved the CP back about 10%. The thickness of the wing at the rear spar was NOW ¾" thicker. Going into that change I was real happy with the flaps, with that change I do not think I have had the "warm & fuzzy" feeling that it is right.
    I am working with one of Mr Ribletts optimized airfoils and I sure do wish I committed to this project while he was still alive. It would be nice to have had his guidance on technical tweaks like this.
    I am hoping once I get out to Oshkosh to work out the bugs in my new computer and get Solidworks to do some magic.

  4. #244

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Vermont USA
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like
    Sure, now I am looking for the actual drawings where I was working on the motion geometry. If these slots need to be closed up it can be as simple as different actuator arm geometry. It could well require changes to the pivot locations should the trailing edge of the fore flap needs to be raised or lowered a bit. Something I have done a few dozen times and can do again.

  5. #245
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    8,589
    Post Thanks / Like
    For what it's worth the flaps on my E-AB Cub are 110" long using the original airfoil. With the flaps up the wing trailing edge extends to the maximum thickness of the flap over it's spar. When the flaps are full down 56 degrees the gap is a maximum of 1/2". I did a test with yarn taped to the bottom of the wing at the point where it curves up into the flap cove. Then rows of yarn on the bottom of the flap to the trailing edge. When the flaps are full down the wing yarn flows up into the slot. The other yarns all flow straight aft in a straight line. Except in the section within the prop wash where the trailing yarns indicate a lot of turbulence.

    I made the wing trailing edge from balsa wood using the flaps as a sanding block shaped it to match the flap leaving just enough room for a couple of layers of fabric with the wing trailing edge coming to a point. The result was a nice smooth flowing transition from the bottom of the wing up through the cove to the top of the flap.
    N1PA

  6. #246

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    nd
    Posts
    3,054
    Post Thanks / Like
    YOUr picture shows the flap all the way down, could we see a picture with the flap back up about 4-6 inches? use what you have there just not going down that far??

  7. #247

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Vermont USA
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like
    I will get the fuse back outside in a few days and shoot more shots with the flaps in many positions. I can shoot some video as well.
    One thing I noticed yesterday before heading out to host our VMC program was the final gap between the foreflap and main opens up in the last few degrees of travel, basically from 75 to 80°. I need to get the pictures to explain that better.

  8. #248
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    8,589
    Post Thanks / Like
    That makes sense. Under those conditions it would be appropriate to limit your flap travel to 75*. It seems likely when moving from 75 to 80°, because of the gap widening there could be a sudden stall of the final flap. This would be caused by the sudden removal of the high velocity flow over the final surface.
    N1PA

  9. #249

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Vermont USA
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like
    I am not sure if it would be a stall or just what. As I have worked with this flap system it has always left questions, A year ago I "walked away" from the geometry once I felt I could lock down any portion to do with the fuselage allowing me to get going on the build. Even when I get going on building the wing I can get pretty far since the flap system has little affect on any structure forward of the aft spar.
    I expect I will have allot to do in the 40 hrs once this is flying. Not sure when the designing will end on this plane. This would not be the first of my planes that did not need a few tweaks after the first flights.
    In this build the linkages between the flaps and ailerons will probably need to be "touched".
    Thanks tripper thanked for this post

  10. #250

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    nd
    Posts
    3,054
    Post Thanks / Like
    it just looked like with the last flap down that far some of the air might go up infront of it instead of all of it going down, but what do i know. but what your doing is cool.

  11. #251

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Vermont USA
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like
    The foreflap and the geometry of the slots play a very important roll in invigorating, directing and controlling attachment of airflow over the surfaces, both upper and lower.
    When designed right these offer very powerful increase in lift especially when going to the extreme as I choose to do. Even with errors in the engineering they will be impressive, but why leave performance on the table.
    Likes tempdoug, Southern Aero liked this post

  12. #252

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Vermont USA
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like
    Another goal reached, the conical engine mount is complete and tacked together.
    IMG_7025.JPG

    I need to get this fairly completely welded before I hang any weight on it but in a few days I will be at a point and weather will allow I will hang a motor and move it outside for pictures. I will also weigh the fuselage with and without the engine to get a baseline.
    Likes motosix liked this post

  13. #253

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Vermont USA
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like
    I took the frame outside to get pictures of the flaps, and once back inside I hung it with scales on it. It is not light but light is not the total goal when gross weight will be close to 1K higher than an original J4.
    This frame with engine mount weighs #109.

    Pictures soon.
    Thanks stknrddr thanked for this post

  14. #254

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Vermont USA
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like
    Here is a series of images of the flaps rolling back. These came out well but the Vid I took seems to default to 16:9 aspect that cropped the top and bottom off, took away allot of information.
    If my math is right the maximum gap at full extension seems to be 2% chord. The gap opens progressively.
    The ratio of extension does not actually open any true gap between the main wing and foreflap until what would be used for landing.
    See if these offer some decent information.
    IMG_7062.JPG IMG_7063.JPG
    IMG_7064.JPG IMG_7065.JPG
    IMG_7066.JPG IMG_7067.JPG

    IMG_7068.JPG
    Likes Southern Aero, Olibuilt, RVBottomly liked this post

  15. #255
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    8,589
    Post Thanks / Like
    This looks very interesting. Will you be able to adjust the ratio of travel between the two sections easily after you start flying? In pictures 4&5 it appears that the forward flap is lagging behind while opening the second gap prematurely.

    What is your planned flap length? They are going to be extremely powerful.
    N1PA

  16. #256

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Vermont USA
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like
    The actuator arm can be tweaked a little but it really needs both ends of the link moved to truly get the ratio happy, but yes I can build these so they can be changed once the flying begins. And I think I should.

    Cord of the foreflap is 10.77"
    Cord of the main flap is 20.75"
    Span is 120"
    I have built and flown a plane with less wing area than these flaps have.

    The ailerons also work as a fowler flap and are essentially the same cord as the main flap.
    Thanks skywagon8a thanked for this post
    Likes skywagon8a, Southern Aero liked this post

  17. #257

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Vermont USA
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like
    Oh, in the pictures above, the tape rule is positioned so the gap can be reference, not for trying to show the distance from the pivot.
    Likes skywagon8a liked this post

  18. #258
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    8,589
    Post Thanks / Like
    How did you say that you were going to operate the flaps, mechanically with an overhead lever? Those flaps are going to be very powerful with high air loads. You may not be able to conveniently move them without some sort of mechanical advantage linkage or a hydraulic system. You might want to consider a hydraulic hand pump with a restricting check valve in the line. The actuators could have return springs incorporated within thereby only needing one hydraulic line.
    N1PA

  19. #259

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Vermont USA
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like
    Correct, overhead lever. The mechanism starts to go over-center at full extension such that there is little to no load on the latch. Geometrically the last 10° of flaps takes very little effort compared to say about 20° of deployment. With the air loads being very high in the last amount of travel this should be fine.
    It also makes the system so there may well be less chance to be broken by someone who thinks they need all the flaps at 50 or more.

    A few hours ago I started redrawing the motion ratios allowing for 70° of full deployment rather than 80°, this is tedious work.
    I think I might go downstairs a weld for awhile since the frame is laying on it's side now.
    Likes skywagon8a, Southern Aero liked this post

  20. #260

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Vermont USA
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like
    I decided to stick to it,
    With the location of a few holes in the linkages changed and the length of the links themselves changed I can easily change-reduce the gaps in the flaps.
    I will later on change the pivot location of the foreflap so it brings down the trailing edge as it travels and see what that looks like since that may allow the full 80° travel.
    Time for breakfast.
    Likes skywagon8a liked this post

  21. #261
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    8,589
    Post Thanks / Like
    With these big barn doors full down they could create air flow disturbances which render the horizontal tail inadequate. Watch for that, we wouldn't want a sudden nose down pitching moment.

    It could indicate that the horizontals should be higher on the tail.
    N1PA

  22. #262

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Vermont USA
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    With these big barn doors full down they could create air flow disturbances which render the horizontal tail inadequate. Watch for that, we wouldn't want a sudden nose down pitching moment.

    It could indicate that the horizontals should be higher on the tail.
    I agree, I have designed the horizontal and elevator to be quite generous but the thing I do not have a true feel for is if they get downwash or blanketed.
    I truly expect the first few hours in this plane will need to be flow when truly on one's A game.

  23. #263

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Vermont USA
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have just spent some time working with flap pivot location. A little change makes a big difference. I obviously knew that since I went thought this many times till a year ago when I felt it was right.
    But there are quite a few options to change the gaps both before and after the plane is ready to fly.
    Likes skywagon8a liked this post

  24. #264

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Vermont USA
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have been welding on the fuse but took half the day to do some plinking in the yard followed by a nice dinner with friends.
    This morning I have been reviewing drawings of the rudder and elevators. I thought I had these designed to be, say 3+3 from Supercub sizes. Looks like my tooling is made for just +3 chord, ele and rudder.
    I am now second guessing if this is just what I want.

    I know I had drawn many variations all of them being larger than the original J4 surfaces.

    I would like to hear a few opinions especially about planes that can slow way down?

  25. #265
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    8,589
    Post Thanks / Like
    I've been able to fly my Cub with the double length flaps and stock sized tail surfaces as slow as a measured 28 mph in ground effect with no loss of elevator control. The wing just would not fly the plane any slower.

    The Twin Bee with the original sized horizontals moved 3 feet further aft than the original Seabee could also fly at off scale low speeds without loss of elevator control.

    At altitude both airplanes will buck and roll the wings with indicated speeds near zero, but neither one ever losses elevator control prior to the wing giving up it's lift. This with power.

    With your flaps, I would look at increasing the aspect ratio prior to increasing the chord. Look at the Helio stabilator.
    N1PA
    Thanks CharlieN thanked for this post
    Likes Southern Aero, CharlieN liked this post

  26. #266

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Vermont USA
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post

    With your flaps, I would look at increasing the aspect ratio prior to increasing the chord. Look at the Helio stabilator.
    I intermittently give thought to building with a Stabilator and have always passed it by, but as I started writing just now I realize there is no reason to not investigate it. I doubt I would change but I always look at options.

  27. #267
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    8,589
    Post Thanks / Like
    I wasn't suggesting using a stabilator only to look at the aspect ratio that the Helio is using. The high aspect ratio is good for low speed operations. A balanced PA-18 style horizontal with a high aspect ratio ought to work well for you.
    N1PA

  28. #268
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    8,589
    Post Thanks / Like
    I've even seen the indicated speed in the Twin Bee go to a negative 5 or 10 mph without ever loosing elevator control. Of course this was with full power, full flaps, lightly loaded and it felt as though I was laying on my back the nose was so high. I've no idea if it was actually going backwards but certainly the airflow would have been strange around the pitot tube.
    N1PA

  29. #269

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Vermont USA
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    I wasn't suggesting using a stabilator only to look at the aspect ratio that the Helio is using. The high aspect ratio is good for low speed operations. A balanced PA-18 style horizontal with a high aspect ratio ought to work well for you.
    I recognize you were not suggesting so but my mind is always going toward the "what if's".

    Sounds like that Twin Bee was an interesting bird.

  30. #270
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    8,589
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Twin Bee is an interesting and amazing flying machine. Now if we can just get these people who don't understand how to fly them to stop wrecking them. There aren't that many left that I know of out of the 23 that were built.
    N1PA

  31. #271

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Vermont USA
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like
    Back in the late 60's and early 70's when I was starting out with aircraft at 4B9 Simsbury CT there was a pile Sea Bees along one border of the field. Guess a previous "elder" mechanic as in Mr Myers had a soft spot in his heart and built a number of them and of course many pilots kept rolling them up on him.
    Interesting and cool planes, I was at the time not aware of the Twin Bees but that extra power must have been a wonderful thing.

  32. #272
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    8,589
    Post Thanks / Like
    The twin was basically the same as the single with increased wing span of 68", fuselage stretch of 36", each flap lengthened 4 feet with an IO-360 B1D on each wing for which we received the Type Certificate in 1965. It changed a streamlined anvil to a Helio beater. An amazing transformation. The first few were made at the Canton Mass airport before moving to Norwood.
    N1PA
    Likes CharlieN liked this post

  33. #273
    TurboBeaver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Northern Maine
    Posts
    580
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    The twin was basically the same as the single with increased wing span of 68", fuselage stretch of 36", each flap lengthened 4 feet with an IO-360 B1D on each wing for which we received the Type Certificate in 1965. It changed a streamlined anvil to a Helio beater. An amazing transformation. The first few were made at the Canton Mass airport before moving to Norwood.
    Pete,
    My Dad bought an old standard "Bee" back in 71 from an old fella up in Shin Pd named Arthur Augustine. It had the
    Miller wing extension on it. Very underpowered outfit. But after watching you at Greenville in the late 70's ........what an eye opener! A few years later while working at Kenmore I saw one with the Helio engine, GO480 with 3 blade prop. I fueled him up and as he left a Kenmore 185 on 2960's departed and I noted where he broke water, the SeaBee took of right behind him and got off in the same spot.........looked like the ROC was 3X what it was with
    the old Franklin.
    Charlie you are doing a great job on this Cub Coupe, keep up the great work. Interesting thread.

    Sent from my LM-X210 using SuperCub.Org mobile app
    Thanks CharlieN thanked for this post
    Likes skywagon8a, Southern Aero liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Our Cub Project
    By tcraft128 in forum Member Projects in Progress
    Replies: 206
    Last Post: 05-03-2016, 06:29 PM
  2. I need a new project
    By cgoldy in forum Experimental Cubs
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-03-2013, 10:10 PM
  3. PA-12 project
    By munro in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-29-2005, 11:25 AM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •