Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.erols.com ([207.172.3.237]) by truman.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-52269U2500L250S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 04:51:10 -0400 Received: from preinstalledcom (207-172-194-92.s29.as1.grn.ny.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.194.92]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id EAA15672 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 04:53:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <374D03AF.5A23@erols.com> Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 04:34:55 -0400 From: "Jeffrey B. Chipetine" Reply-To: abcrental@erols.com To: lancair.list@olsusa.com Subject: Aileron Vibration X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Mime-Version: 1.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Guy Buchanan correctly points out the ability for sharp cut offs on the trailing edges to help carry airflow further back on a foil before turbulating. If I may contribute my 2c worth, I would refer you to "Abbot and VonDernoff's Theory of Wing Sections". This very old text is still a basic building block for any aerodynamics student(this means us). The sharpness of the trailing edge should be a function of the type of foil AND a percentage of the chord length. Further sharpening beyond this theoretical ideal is tough because any deviations become super critical in relation to their propensity for any error to increase the turbulating of air further forward on the foil. While written for engineers, it is understandable, if a little boring, even for non engineers.(like Me) According to them, it is better to SQUARE your trailing edges than to carry them further back to a sharp point that may include minor but fatal errors. When modifying boats for racing, a square trailing edge inevitably shows flow to stay attached further back than the sharp edge. While the mediums are different, I think builders should consider this information. I have done quite a few of these mods, and my boats inevitably have done very well with the squared edges. I have to forward my concern that this Vibration as described could easily propogate throughout the minor structure on a sympathetic basis, and cause a catastrophic failure. Despite everyone's best efforts, voids of even a minor nature are inevitable in a wet layup technique, and can become amplification points, depending on their size and relation to the frequency about which the vibration is based. Also, vibration such as described can quickly flex a structure millions of times in a short period. All multiple ply layups are life limited, and have a definate fatigue and cycle lifespan. Vibration can easily cause these structures to reach their fatige lifespan during testing, leaving little or nothing left for actual flying. Finally, (whew, I thought this guy would never shut up), Repetitive flexing of the structure with vibration such as this can cause an incredible amount of very localized heat build up, with the accompanying loss of integrity. Composite structures using wet layup techniques have failed through repeated flexing on a microscopic scale. Such flexing appears to break down the layup starting at a void, powdering the cloth and glass mix and creating a very effective internal pumice that accelerates the wear around it. The problem of vibration in a project like this is that it is difficult if not impossible to substitute an aileron from another project to see if it is the aileron itself, or the attachment methods that are the cause. While I hate to bring it up, you need to check the wing area ahead of the aileron for any deviations. Turbulated air reaching the leading edge of the aileron sets up all kinds of nasty surprises. It is possible that wind tunnel testing may be the only way to closely observe and correct this problem, as you essentialy have a foil , "the aileron" functioning in the lee of the main wing foil. The gap between the two must be correct, and consistant for best air flow. If you can duplicate the problem with a tufted wing while safely on the ground, you will be in a better position to deal with it.If many others have had this problem, the factory may wish to help/observe. The suggested solution of the addition of weight may stop the vibration through damping action. I believe this may only shift the critical frequency of the vibration. If this shift is to a point that is outside the failure range of the structure, OK. If however this shift just goes to a point that is on the edge of the envelope, you may wish to reconsider You may need that aileron to be there to the very last instant, even if it is just before the spar overloads on a hi-g pullout or thunderstorm burst.... My personal LAYMAN'S OPINION would be to correct the deviations in the surface, double check the leading edge thickness entry and width for correctness, review the internal structure/bracing, trailing edge sharpness and square, and of course, the integrity of the hinge/attachment systems. I wish you well. Be safe.. Regards to all....Jeffrey B. Chipetine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML homepage: http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html