Re: Larger fuel tank under seat + higher cabin headroom.
|
Christopher <qdf_files@...>
Here is what has me all fired about about a stabilizer and elevator
on the Tail: Quote: Hi Chris, Here is quick summary of what I know about adding a T tail to a tandem Wing airplane: 1. DO NOT add anything other than a sub foot span sized T tail to your Project unless you are a structural engineer or you have a structural engineer direct your modification effort by calculating how much reinforcement the tail cone and vertical fin will need for a given size H. Stab. 2. The T tail opens up the performance envelope of a tandem wing plane. They cruise faster by 5-10% and land slower by about the same margin. The glide slope angle is much more controllable and approach speed is much more manageable with an elevator on an aft stabilizer driving the pitch control. As a side benefit, you don't need elevators on the front wing any more once elevators are installed on a medium sized H. Stab. so you can add flaps to both wings. This reduces the stall speed yet further and turns the planes into STOL capable performers. 3. The elevator on the T tail can work on conjunction with the canard Elevators if you don't want to modify the standard dragonfly control system beyond adding an elevator to a T tail stabilizer. I found in my X plane simulation of a Q200+ 5' span T tail H. Stab. that reducing the canard elevator throw to about 20%of normal and using the elevator on the T tail for most of the pitch control made a much easier flying plane than an unmodified Q200 for the same reason above: slow flight was much more controllable and speed management was much better. It was possible to slow the plane down in a 2g steep turn and have a steeper glide slope than without the T tail. Stalls are more predictable and flare can be much deeper without the pitch buck or "nodding" that canard planes do when at minimum speed. No smashing nose first into the runway when coming in too slow. 4. The X plane simulation T tail Q200 had snappier handling than the Unmodified Q200 and was much more fun to fly around. The normal Q200 feels a lot like a C172 or Boeing 737. the T tail Q200 feels more like an Extra 300. 5. I gave up my plans to build a Q200 and have since designed my own T Tail Q200 variant. Once I finish my mechanical engineering degree I will conduct a series of structural analyses and design the airframe. The aerodynamic characteristics of the X plane model of this design will be proven with a 1/3 scale radio controlled model. ------------------ --- In Q-LIST@..., "Darrell Daniels" <log@...> wrote: tail off. Darrellheadroom. informationDavid, feetis that the performance envelope of the Q are opened up with a T- that.long becoming a tri-foil aircraft... if you wan't to call it this ifcan be done. I don't care if the airplane becomes something else someonethe performance is improved by as much as 10%. keepeven suggesting a radical change to these airplanes I want to beendiscussion off list, if you would be willing to do so. I have Tail,referred to you for some other questions I had too. thanwould apply to either aircraft. This group is much more active possibilitythe DFly group so I passed the question here about this mainplus I wanted to look into the idea of flapperons, but not my canopy sothrust of interest, mainly the T Tail and perhaps a raised withI don't hit my head on the top. tomyproject even if it takes me ten years to finish it. I want putaT-Tail on it as the sole elevator and perhaps look intoflapperonsfor both wings.DOA RIP. |
|
|