Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 22:26:57 -0600 From: Chris Anderson Subject: COZY: Um flaps? I was wondering, has anyone explored putting flaps on a MKIV? I realize this might be a silly question for some reason, but I was wondering and didn't find anything in the archives I have. Thanks ============================================================== ...because our country will inevitably proceed down the path marked by the ideas of Robert Heinlein. That's legacy enough for any man. He showed us where the future is. It's our job to go and make it. --Tom Clancy, of Robert A. Heinlein Chris Anderson andersoc@wi.net KA9UQO Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 00:16:48 -0800 From: "LCDR James D. Newman" Organization: INFINITY Aerospace http://www.flash.net/~infaero Subject: COZY: Re: Um flaps? Hi Chris and All, > Chris Anderson wrote:< >I was wondering, has anyone explored putting flaps on a MK-IV? I realize this might be a silly question for some reason, but I was wondering and didn't find anything in the archives I have.< Besides the StarShip and the JetCruiser (I can't think of any others), I don't know of any other canard aircraft like ours with flaps. As I've mentioned in previous posts, our little canard aircraft main wings cannot have more than a -0.05 pitching moment, or the main wings will over power the canard. Thus, a full blown flap system would increase the pitching moment of the main wing onto the plain straight canard over powering it - bad jambo. Many of you may already know this, but for those who don't, the StarShip resolves this increased pitching moment problem from their fowler flaps on the StarShip wings by sweeping the canard from the 15 degrees aft cruise position, to 5 degrees forward of the typical straight canard with the flaps full down. As the flaps come down, the canard (coupled to the movement of the flaps) programs forward, moving the canard center of lift, providing more canard length and lift in essence, countering the pitching moment caused by the flaps programing down. A proven different idea along flapped canard aircraft thoughts with a little history: On 2 flying Long-EZ's that I know of, one was Cliff Cady's Long-EZ (who is in this group), the builder/pilot had the ability to droop the ailerons 10 degrees and reflex the ailerons to a maximum of 7 degrees by using 2 small linear actuators with a revolution counter to ensure the ailerons drooped and reflexed evenly, and still the pilot could easily trim out the pitching moment of the flaperons with elevator trim. The linear actuators were easily spliced and wired into CS 129. Since the ailerons are normally +/- 20+ degrees of throw, the plane is still controllable throughout the flight envelope with ailerons and rudder if a/the flaperon motor(s) failed &/or had a runaway situation since the flaperons throw is only +7/-10 degrees. Proven benefits -- Granted, 10 degrees of aileron droop is not a lot compared to a full blown flap system, and the ailerons are thin compared to most flaps, but the 10 degree drooped flaperons did allow the plane to fly a little slower, enabled a little steeper approach, the plane did have a little shorter landing distance, better roll control at the slower speed with even the stock length ailerons, and had a little better visibility over the nose. Reflexing the ailerons (like the glider boys do) caused the plane to cruise a little faster by unloading the canard a little. The plane could be trimmed a little in pitch too; and, a surprising benefit, reflexing the ailerons on take-off helped the plane rotate a little sooner since the ailerons are aft of the CG decreasing take-off distance a little, and roll control was better at all speeds. Draw Backs to flaperons -- one may say it's unsafe; at least one we know will say absolutely don't do it; wing pitching moment is increased a little, but easily trimmable as proven in 2 Long's; and true it hasn't been done on a 3 or 4 seat canard that I know of (yet), just 2 seat tandems. Cliff can, also, address his findings concerning the pros and cons of flaperons, where to get the small linear actuators, how to do it, etc. - take 'er away Cliff! [Yes, I know - and you're welcome ;-).] To address your question Chris, this _IS_ Experimental Aviation and you will have to make your own decision if you want to figure out how to make a full blown flap system for your dream machine - there are many kinds and ways to do it :-). In the interim, I will be testing many ideas in my Infinity 1 such as flaperons (I'll let you know how well all my ideas work), and I'll bet the King Kozy God will have at least flaperons too. But remember, our planes are original designs and not a Cozy MK-IV :-). But it is easy to retrofit. Hope this was of some interest and help to those interested. Infinity's Forever, JD From: "norm & monda" Subject: Re: COZY: Um flaps? Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 08:18:12 -0500 BAD MOVE. NO FLAPS. NO NO. FLAPS AND CANARDS DONT MIX. the explanation i got was way over my head, but the end results would be fatal as explaned by ac engineer from write pat air force base. norm & monda cozy IV #202 From: CCady Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 17:22:30 EST Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Um flaps? Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) In a message dated 97-12-06 09:32:02 EST, you write: << Cliff can, also, address his findings concerning the pros and cons of flaperons, where to get the small linear actuators, how to do it, etc. -] >> JD and others, Yes I tried flaperons on my Long-Ez by installing MAC trim servos in the wing root that moved the bellcrank pivot point. Problem was that the MAC servos were not powerful enough to overcome the friction in my installation. I did get the setup to work a couple of times and I liked it alot. With the ailerons down for landing the plane actually felt more stable and the were surprisingly effective as flaps despite only having them down about 10 degrees. To maintain trim the elevators are also down. If you had the ailerons down too much you could run out of elevator travel. I had the original canard on my Long-Ez by the way. As a experiment I designed a actuator that uses a 16mm 540 to 1 gearmotor that fits in a 3/4" dia tube. The whole thing was to replace the CS-129. It's a pain to make something that small and the gearmotor is expensive $135.00. I think that a pair Motion linear actuators with a 1" travel .5" up or .5" down would be a good alternative. Also if a small actuator could be found that would help. It would be good if you could make some sort of indicator showing when they were centered in a neutral position which the Mac servos have. I think for general trim purposes it would be nice to have them installed. It doesn't take too much up or down movement to make a supstantial trim change. I don't see why one could not have a canard with a larger span with limited TE down elevator at times when the flaperons were not in use. Then when the flaperons were down the elevator travel would not be restricted. This would give you more elevator trim to compensate for the flaperons. Cliff Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 14:02:03 -0600 From: Chris Anderson Subject: Re: COZY: Um flaps? I'd like to thank everyone for the extenisve clairafication on flaps. I looked over the actuated vortex generators, and that seems like a much more elegent solution. I'm a long way from the point where I'd include them, so I'll same all this info for later. (Marc, should I collect these posts?) At 12:37 AM 12/7/97 -0800, Judd Stewart wrote: >Chris Anderson wrote: >> >> I was wondering, has anyone explored putting flaps on a MKIV? I realize >> this might be a silly question for some reason, but I was wondering and >> didn't find anything in the archives I have.. >Actually there is a patent granted putting flaps on a variez, # >4,739,957. In summary it is a triangel device put on the top of the >strake and when deployed augments the lift by vortex genetration. >see http://patent.womplex.ibm.com ============================================================== ...because our country will inevitably proceed down the path marked by the ideas of Robert Heinlein. That's legacy enough for any man. He showed us where the future is. It's our job to go and make it. --Tom Clancy, of Robert A. Heinlein Chris Anderson andersoc@idcnet.com KA9UQO by m5.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id VkP26327; Sun, 07 Dec 1997 21:17:36 EST Subject: Re: COZY: Um flaps? From: mbeduhn@juno.com (Mark W Beduhn) Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 21:17:36 EST On Fri, 05 Dec 1997 22:26:57 -0600 Chris Anderson writes: >I was wondering, has anyone explored putting flaps on a MKIV? I realize >this might be a silly question for some reason, but I was wondering and >didn't find anything in the archives I have. > >Thanks Although I don't see any need for adding flaps to the Cozy (based upon my limited 55 hours of flying), I do think it would be nice to have some speed brakes on the top of the wings (like the newer Mooney's have). Even with the nose wheel extended, this bird doesn't want to slow down, and you can't deploy the belly brake until you are already down to 100 or so. I think it would be great to fly really close to the airport at high altitude, then quickly drop down and land (like some of the local Bonanza pilots do). A cruise decent can give you and your passengers a fairly long bumpy end to a flight if there is a lot of turbulence in the area. Mark Beduhn Cozy IV N494CZ From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 12:40:10 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: COZY: Um flaps? On 12/07/97 21:17:36 you wrote: > > >On Fri, 05 Dec 1997 22:26:57 -0600 Chris Anderson >writes: >>I was wondering, has anyone explored putting flaps on a MKIV? I realize >>this might be a silly question for some reason, but I was wondering and >>didn't find anything in the archives I have. >> >>Thanks > >Although I don't see any need for adding flaps to the Cozy (based upon my >limited 55 hours of flying), I do think it would be nice to have some >speed brakes on the top of the wings (like the newer Mooney's have). >Even with the nose wheel extended, this bird doesn't want to slow down, >and you can't deploy the belly brake until you are already down to 100 or >so. I think it would be great to fly really close to the airport at high >altitude, then quickly drop down and land (like some of the local Bonanza >pilots do). A cruise decent can give you and your passengers a fairly >long bumpy end to a flight if there is a lot of turbulence in the area. > >Mark Beduhn >Cozy IV N494CZ > > > There are an effective set of speed brakes on every EZ that can be deployed at any speed!, they are called rudders. Used them yesterday coming from Atlanta to Cleveland IFR. Trip was on to except for 0.2 hours on approach. Tops at 5500, 3000 overcast, 1400 few, airport elev 780. Ground temp 35F. Got a cruise 3000 clearance from 7000, decended just to the tops until last minute, then idle trottle, deploy both rudders and gear, slow up to 105K, deploy landing brake, rate of climb showed 2500 fpm down. In 1 minute was through the overcast, could see airport through the few clouds. landed with 1/8" ice on leading edges. Carried extra 5K on final, was a little slow, carrier landing, should carry 10-15k extra on final. Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 22:38:36 -0500 From: "Douglas O. Powell" Subject: Re: COZY: Um flaps? At 09:17 PM 12/07/1997 EST, Mark W Beduhn wrote: > >Although I don't see any need for adding flaps to the Cozy (based upon my >limited 55 hours of flying), I do think it would be nice to have some >speed brakes on the top of the wings (like the newer Mooney's have). >Even with the nose wheel extended, this bird doesn't want to slow down, >and you can't deploy the belly brake until you are already down to 100 or >so. I think it would be great to fly really close to the airport at high >altitude, then quickly drop down and land (like some of the local Bonanza >pilots do). A cruise decent can give you and your passengers a fairly >long bumpy end to a flight if there is a lot of turbulence in the area. > >Mark Beduhn >Cozy IV N494CZ > > I would be very hesitant to put speed brakes or spoilers on the main wing of a canard aircraft. These devices will reduce the lift from the main wing, possibly leading to a main wing stall (a very bad thing in a canard). Canards are safe ("stall proof") when designed and operated in the regime where the canard stalls at a lower angle of attack than the main wing (ignoring the differences in AOA between the canard and main due to part of the main operating in the downwash of the canard). Lowering the AOA at which the main wing stalls by using spoilers could very easily put you in the unsafe regime where the main wing stalls before the canard. Doug Powell Cozy MkIV SN 293 Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 09:42:39 -0600 From: tpierce@ghg.net (Terence J. Pierce) Subject: Re: COZY: Um flaps? Mark W Beduhn wrote: > On Fri, 05 Dec 1997 22:26:57 -0600 Chris Anderson > writes: > >I was wondering, has anyone explored putting flaps on a MKIV? I realize > >this might be a silly question for some reason, but I was wondering and > >didn't find anything in the archives I have. > > > >Thanks > > Although I don't see any need for adding flaps to the Cozy (based upon my > limited 55 hours of flying), I do think it would be nice to have some > speed brakes on the top of the wings (like the newer Mooney's have). > Even with the nose wheel extended, this bird doesn't want to slow down, > and you can't deploy the belly brake until you are already down to 100 or > so. I think it would be great to fly really close to the airport at high > altitude, then quickly drop down and land (like some of the local Bonanza > pilots do). A cruise decent can give you and your passengers a fairly > long bumpy end to a flight if there is a lot of turbulence in the area. > > Mark Beduhn > Cozy IV N494CZ I remember Tim Merrill ( owner of the 1996 Oshkosh Grand Champion) saying that he hardly even uses his speed brake. He just flattens out his constant speed prop and it causes plenty of drag to make a quick decent. -- Terry Pierce <>< mailto:tpierce@ghg.net Cozy Mark IV #600 Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 16:55:33 -0800 From: "LCDR James D. Newman" Organization: INFINITY Aerospace http://www.flash.net/~infaero Subject: COZY: Re: Um flaps? Hi All, >>Terry Pierce wrote:<< >>I remember Tim Merrill ( owner of the 1996 Oshkosh Grand Champion) saying that he hardly even uses his speed brake. He just flattens out his constant speed prop and it causes plenty of drag to make a quick decent.<< >Yea, if you got $8000 for the prop and can live with all the added weight. Think about how often props get wiped out.< I'm not sure what 'wiped out?' means from normal use, but prop blade damage rarely occurs when proper pilotage and maintenance is applied. Repair to an MT blade is only about $300 per blade with 75% of the blade remaining if you don't do it yourself. Besides, logic dictates that the tremendous benefits of a constant speed prop (shorter take-off distance, better climb, better cruise speed, descent capabilities, safety, etc.) _GREATLY_ outweigh the initial cost and potential total replacement cost of the constant speed prop. Insurance would cover a totally 'wiped out' prop, which is probably caused from an off-field landing, which means you have bigger problems than just prop damage. A WhirlWind constant speed prop weighs 25 to 50 lbs. depending on which model and version you get. MT and Hoffman props are comparable in weight. Many canards have been flying quite well for years with controllable and constant speed props. Logically speaking, never let the costs of something and the naysayers persuade you from doing what's right for you. Infinity's Forever, JD Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 21:28:53 -0500 From: "Jeff S. Russell http://www.AeroCad.com" Organization: AeroCad Inc. Subject: Re: COZY: Um flaps? Terence J. Pierce wrote: > I remember Tim Merrill ( owner of the 1996 Oshkosh Grand Champion) saying > that he hardly even uses his speed brake. He just flattens out his constant > speed prop and it causes plenty of drag to make a quick decent. It's only money! The Velocity XL I flew did not have one because of the CS prop. It did not need it :-) -- Jeff Russell/AeroCad Inc. E-mail: Jeff@aerocad.com P.O. Box 7307 Port St. Lucie FL. 34985 Shop# 561-460-8020 Home# 561-343-7366 Composite workshop info: http://www.Sportair.com