Re: Toe
dfwsfug <dfwsfug@...>
David,
If I understand tailwheel power correctly it is in the leveraging as opposed to arc which would be problematic on narrow sharp turn taxiways.However assisting straight line takeoff and landing runs at the expense of manuevering. I welcome your reminder to prudently stick to plans making the 4:1 ratio concept for discussion only item.It maybe in the feet agressive while under rudder control and gingerly while under tailwheel control after the wing stops lifting. Bringing new meaning to the term "two step." An undiscovered frontier for us at this point.With outrigger gear I wonder if that amplifies minute toe variations as it does differential braking action.Fishing line a better choice. Thanks and Season's Greetings CE in SS --- In Q-LIST@y..., "David J. Gall" <David@G...> wrote: CE:factors that I did not mention that must be considered when choosing arudder/tailwheel ratio. Four-to-one might seem best for the ONE consideration that Ilisted, but even that has mitigating factors to consider. I did not addressthe issue of control power at all; that factor alone will significantlyaffect the preferred ratio. What if the tailwheel's control power is only1/4 that of the rudder - then the preferred ratio would be back up to 1:1.be too effective. I would not recommend that you do any design changesbased on his report and my comment alone. He has a non-standard tailwheel setupthat just might be the only one like it in the world. Like they say on themileage sticker on cars: "Your results may vary."you have already built your plane, it is sufficient to measure the camber atgross weight and verify that it is neutral or slightly positive.verses empty on the toe of the mains. If we set for neutral toe empty. Thatfor toe but what for camber? We have a direct rod link rudder to solid |
|