Re: Strainers


Jay Scheevel
 

A few of reasons:

1. To exert the same torque, the attachment arms would have to be lengthened (to retain distance from hinge line) which would make them more fragile. I am aware of at least one incident where a strainer, built per plans, broke off in flight by shearing the attachment arms. I have beefed mine up, so even if a 10 year old stepped on it, it probably would not break.

2. The strainer trims out the moment caused by the under-camber in the trailing edge of the LS-1 airfoil. It cancels this force when in neutral trail. However, when the elevator is deflected down or up, the strainer resists this deflection. The resistance introduces additional torque that must be overcome by the torque tube. Having the strainer inboard near the attach point of the steel and aluminum torque tube doubler means less load on the foam outboard of the strainer. Maybe that is the reason that the D-fly requires an extra beef-up on the inboard end of the elevator.

3. Any assymetry from side to side has minimal roll impact when mounted inboard, not so outboard

4. Like Jim said: It works just fine where it is.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q, still building

Join main@Q-List.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.