LIGHT. | asLIGHT AIRPLANE DESIGN by L, Pazmany (Tliustrations by the Author) Published by L, Pacmany Printed in the United States of America San Diego, CaliforniaCopyright 1963 L. Pazmany All rights reserved, including that of translation into foreign languages; no part of this book may be reproduced in any form without the specific permis- sion of the author and publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. For information, address the publisher, L, Pagmany, P.O. Box 10051, San Diego 10, California. THIRD EDITION ‘The author is indebted to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for their courtesy i itting the reproduction of their reports and to the Controller of Her Britannic Majesty's Stationery Offi who authorized the reproduction of some figures from R&MNo. 2622. Copyright is not claimed in this material,pears Ae Mayes cae 3 ee x ap at) r 2 Sikacdic tte de Aarres Aedsie 66LIGHT AIRPLANE DESIGN by L, Pazmany (Thiustrations by the Author) Published by L. Paamany Printed in the United States of America Sen Diego, CaliforniaCopyright 1963, by . Pazmany All rights reserved, including that of translation into foreign languages; no part of this book may be duced in any form without the specific permis- sion of the author and publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. For information, address the publisher, L. Pasmeny, P.O, Box 10051, San Diego 10, California. The author is indebted to the National Aeronasties and Space Aiministravion for their courtesy in per- mitting the reproduction of their reports and to the Controluer of Her Britansic Vajesty's Stationery Office who authorized the reproduction of some figures from RG Milo. 2622. Copyright is not claimed in this material.TABLE OF CONTENTS inary Design L Characteristics Way an Acrobatic Airplane? What Constitutes a Safe and Hasy-to-Fly Airplane? Aesthetic or Funeti Semi-monocoque Constry Considerations About an All-Metal Airplane Way Cantilever Wing? Way Detachable Wing? a Rectangular W: y Low Wing? Crash Worthiness Airfoil Selection Wing Ares Determins’ Aspect. Ratio Determination dynamic Characteristics Bupennage Dimensioning Power Plant Selection Cockpit Design Landing Gear Design Weight Estimation Airplene Balance APPENDIX REFERENCES Page TRAN BSSREREaddi PREFACE ‘This book describes the Preliminary Design of the Pavmany PL-1 "Laminar" sizplane, which now hse more than 450 hours of flying time. At a future date other volumes will be published covering: Performance, Stability snd Control, Structural Design, Stress Analysis, Construction and Flight ‘Tests. It is not easy to predict all flying qualities of an airplane using calculations. This applies either to the simplest “home-built” or to @ sophisticated supersonic fighter, mostly when they sre of unconventional type, like the delta wing. There are too many variables in the game, esrecially when stability and control is the subject. The aerodynamicist needs the help of wind tunnel testing and simulators to rectify or ratify his calculations. ‘The PL-1 is a conventional airplane for present standards; nevertheless, modern aerodynamic and structural date were applied in every phase of the design. At the present more than M0 PL-1 airplanes are in construction all over the United States and Canada. A few are in construction in Australis, India, New Zealand, Panama, British Solomon Islands and England. ‘The combination of the selected laminar airfoil with the untwisted rectangular wing planfom resulted in a very efficient wing with extrenely gentle stall and very good aileron control. The airplane has no "vices" and is easy to fly. The acrobatic capabilities of the Pl-l vere demonstrated publicly in several air shows; all kind of acrobatic maneuvers vere executed; barrel, snap rolls, immelnans, spins, loopings, stalls, etc. Also, the landing characteristics were evaluated. The comments can be sumarized as "in excellent trainer," "a very good acrobatic eirplane," "It is impossible to make a bad landing.” This book is dedicated to the great "amateur-builders" family hoping that it will encourage them to be a little more "amateur-designers." Particular thanks are due to Mr. Karl Sanders for assistance in proofreading and helpful criticism and suggestions. San Diego, California L. Pazmany December 196! Photo from AIR PROGRESS Magazine by Don DownieDMTRODUCTION ae most difficult problem in designing an airplane, when this job is done by an inexperienced person, is to find @ guide that shows step by step the sequence in problems have to be approached and solved. which the differen me amateur designer can select between two extreme procedures: neering. The procedure described in the following pages is an intermediate way, and it must be stated here that this is only one of the many ways. The necessary knowledge about different subjects, such as Aerodynamics, Stress, Structural Design, Air Regulations, is distributed in many sources of informtion. To find this knowledge it is necessary to invest a great amount of time searching and reading. Sorting out useful meterlal takes up the most time because 90 per cent of the informtion is not related with the actual problem. But it is not only enough to find the information in books and reports, ‘The second problem is "How to put it to use" and for answering this question nothing is better than an example, This is the idea behind this publication--a guide for the amateur airplane designer. No higher mathematics will be used, only the four basic algebra operations, along ith many graphs and diagrams. Sometimes more than one approach to @ problem will be given, with the related com- nents about its usefulness. Of course, many solutions are influenced by a personal viewpoint. ‘The reader must keep in mind that there are no “prescriptions” to design airplanes. If some airplanes have large wing fuselage fairings or nicely rounded wing tips, ‘that does not mean that "all" airplanes must have wing fillets or rounded tips. A large wing fillet might reduce the interference drag, but ite velghte and produc- tion complications could be a good reason to leave it out and take the penalty in performance, The design of an airplane is not a simple task but a series of com promisen,this is callea "Mi well to an amateur-built airy the first question, The design er to this question could be art is desired, it s do you want to do wit task will be very much simplified if « Lied out, But whe the flying mac straight a the state-of. t always competi Tf you w hapry with something to "fly around," you probably do not need to design an airplane in the first place, Tt will be mich simpler nd some Piper Cub wings, Aeronca fuselage, Iuscobe teil surfaces, and a Cessna gear, put it a: p/and if you bit the C.G. at 25 per cent chord and have enough AP it wi take you "around. e a break-through in aerodynamics or structures. pending fantastic amount ‘Take advantage of ner hand, do not try Private industry and governme: ay end the sults are while keeping in mind are: - Make it big inside and smell outside as the compa Tei strengthen is weax, ce weight even before you start your design, Assume opt: the © components Ll go up anyway, You probably spire. oversize or overweight com palize the de: lanes. he Do not existent” ail mum choice of basic materials Use @ ean up" yourdesigs and balance all gh riiest stage of lesign. of your "bird. flying. spend some thousand hours in the desig @ construction, but mostlyUse: Sport, Trainer, Acrobatic, Ivo Inherent Attributes: | Safety. Fuselage Type of Construction: — Semimonocoaue. Basic Structurel Yeteriel: Aluminum Alloy. Skin Meteriel: A Joy endfor Megneeiun, Aluminum Al pe of Construction: Cantilever, Detachsble, Carry-through Spar. Shape: Rectangular. Tocation: ow Airfoil: fo be selected. Aspect Ratio: ~ 7 reat ~ 100 eq.ft. High Lift Devices: Flepe, Wing Loading: ~ 10 Ibe/ec ‘Alum ‘Aluminum Alloy or Magnesium, Conventional, Conventional or Slab Tail. udder Configuration: Stab-Elevator Configuration: Power P: ‘Type sed, Air-cooled, 85-100 BP. Fuel System: Gravity and electrical booster pump Tank Tocation: Wing tips. (Optional fuselage tank for extended range.) Cockpit Control Type: Stick Instruments: tom Canopy Type: Sliding, Bubble. Visibility: Normal. Ianding Gear Type? ‘Tricycle, Fixed. Weight Empty: “ 750 Ibs. Gross: ~/ 1300 Iba. Speed: ~ 50 mph, Cruising Speed: ~ 115 mph. Mex. Speed: ~ 135 mph. ~l50 miles. 77°15 ,000WAY AN ACROBATIC ATRPLAN - Part 3 (Ref. 1) paragraph 3,186 establishes the following: Maneuvering oad factors (a), The positive Lintt maneuvering load factor shall not be less than the following values 24,000 Ce 7 noe aa category Norm * sy t0,000 cory except that n need not be greater than 3,8 and shall not be less than 2.5 ns 4h Category Utility = 6.0 category Acrobatic On paragraph 3.20 of the same regulation, Airplane categories are defined: “(1) Normal - Suffix W - Airplanes in ti ‘tegory are intended for non- acrobatic nonscheduled passenger, and nonscheduled cargo operation. "(2) vi n this category are normal operations and limited acrobetic maneuvers. not suited for use in snap or stalls (exc "(3) Acrobatic - Suffix A - Airplanes in this category will have restrictions as to type of maneuver permitted unless the necessity 4s disclosed by the required flight test." Relatively few components are affected by the higher load factor due to the acrobatic maneuvers, while a great part of the stru is dimensioned by minimm prectical gauges. Thus, with a small weight penalty, used to "beef-up" some critical parts such as the wing spar, the airplane can be designed to meet the requirements imposed by the "Acrobatic" category instead of the "Utility.” The additional strength also covers future possibilities of increa: power, In such case the airplane could be reclassified in the "Ut with no change--or very minor changes, depending on the EP increase. ing the engine ” category Another consideration which is becoming more and more important these days is ct of wing tip vortices generated by fast flying highly loaded airplanes Jet transports or bombers. A CAB investigation report on the desintegration of = widely used personal planes relates that: "A light aircraft at 100 mph penetrating the vortices of a Jarge Jet aircraft at 90 degrees and one mile behind recorded an acceleration of plus 2,5 g and minus 3.5 g." Other aircraft et greater speeds have measured structural loads as high as 9 g in the vake of @ lerge aircraft,"yhen a large jet air 3-1/2 mi. in back and a Twi. In relatively still air, or er the aircraft is out requirenents for tors higher than the minimum ultimate des wegory personal aircraft can reasonably be expected. Normal C existent CAR Part 3 © previous yy should be enough to revise to meet the problems of this "jet age." 1-3 WHAT CONSTITUPES A SAFE AND RASY TO FLY ATRPLANE? "The flying qualities of an airplane may be defined as the stability and con trol characteristics that have an importent bearing on the safety of flight end on the pilot's impressions of the ease of flying end maneuvering an airplane.” on Personal. Aircraft tion is a must for the aircraft great, ‘ome of the These words are reproduced from "NAG Research" - (Ref. 2). The reading of designer. ‘The amount of experience and recommendetions pr that it is not possible to reproduce here. Follow papers included. story and Significance of Measured Flying qualities" “Flying Qualities Requirements for Per portioning the Airplane for Lateral Stability" “Design of Control Surfaces” tigation to Increase the Sefety of a Light Airplane" ig Spinning of Light Airplanes" can be said that a rough stebility end control analysis is move a & refined performance improvement. It ie often believed that the stability of an aircraft is only a fi i Many design hord, but the stability is also controlled be outlined in the second part of this book. by other It is much safer nd some time investigating at least some stability and ol charac is to follow the usual method of “cut and try.” Some designer: ‘ied about the strength of a spar, yet they are completely careless about the location, size or trevel of the elevator.meant thet a aiffic angul: fairing for an open cockp ign of ax In Figure lace airplane are sup-§ WHY SEMI-MONOCOQUE CONSTRUCTION? widely used for airplanes of this size and characteristics. The fuselage built around four longerons does not requi complicated ass (see photo); and also, it ic an efficient structure to transmit 1 ‘The stress analysis is simple; eacl lage can the The Semi-monocoque construction1-6 CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT Al ALL-METAL ATRPLANE @) Materia ‘The Aluminum Alloy will be used for all the s al parts. The uni- formity in quality is better than plywood or spruce. With a metallic skin, the expensive fabric finishing is eliminated, not only as an initial invest~ ment, but also at the periodical overhaul. In the December 1945 issue of S.A.E. Journal (Transactions), @ very interes- cle was published. The title is "Wood vs. Metal Construction in by Herb Rawdon, Assistant Ohief Engineer of Beech Aircraft Corp. e is related e comparison of wood and metal as material for aircreft construction based on the fortunate circumstance that the Be Company was building an all-netal and a plywood covered airplane for the AMP at the seme time. After many interesting discussions and examples, one of the final consider- ations are: of the metal structure is less than wood, even he smaller airplane che article there is a comparative table about weight of rent materials used in the construction of equi- valent Outer Wing Panels che At-6 Aircral TABLE 2 | were | wercur rn 4 oF az.) Stainless steel M4610 steel Magnesium (ws Plywood Plastic plywood, ) Weight Comparison Between a Fabric and ¥ ty of 3). Page 3-11: Airplane Cotton Cloth-Mercerized: 0.0273 Ibs./sq. ft. Page 3-05: Flightex fabric (bare): 0.0281 bs./sq. ft. Fabric finish, regular 9 coat system: 0.0600 Ibs./sq. t. This finish includes 4 coats Clear Nitrate Dope, 2 coats Pigmented Aluminum Dope, and 3 coats Coler Pigmented Dope. Fabricsssseeeeseee1++020280 Ibs./sq. ft. Finien, 0.0600 1bs./sa. ft 010120 100010 ne same manuel, Obtained from Page 33.03 o: Fabric covering (including Tape, Stitching and Dope) Unitary weight = 0.100 1bs./sq. ft. Tais agrees with the previous value. area = 100 sq. ft. x 2 = 200 200 x .100 = 20 Ibs. The estimated "vetted" wi nt of febric covering Assuming that the leading edge of the wing up to the main spar will be covered with .040 inch magnesium "stressed" skin, while the remaining surface vill be covered with -020 inch "non-stressed magnesium skin: itary weight of .0hO Mg = .368 Ibs./sq. ft. Unitary weight of .020 Mg = .164 Ibs./sq. ft. 040 Mg surface = 35% of 200 sa. +020 Mg surface 200 sa. Weight of .O40 Mg sheet = .368 x Weight of .020 Mz ais aifference would be ver: sary to carry the toreional and chord loads in @ conventional two spar fabric overed wings igned with magnesium sheet covering all , the following obj The Pl-l airplane was nally de: surfaces, In considering the use of this type mate: aros (1) Special care is necessary to adequately protect magne: against corrosion. (2) Additional cost of magnesium as compared to aluminum. (3) The anateur builder may also confront hin with the d! of procuring this msterial readily. scibility that this design will be released for the ‘ioulty In view of these considerations, it was decided to use aluminum, resulting in a weight penalty. At the present time, there are many civil and military aircraft in opera~ tion incorporating the use of magnesium components. It appears that if appropriate measures are taken to prevent corrosion, no other problems arise. The best example is a Ryan Q-2C Firebee jet drone which drifted 13 months in the Pacific Ocean from the coast of Californie to near Hawail. The Q-2C has several magnesium parte which remained in fairly good condition. esc) Aerodynamic Advantages A relatively thick skin on the leading edge allows the use of countersunk ' rivets, and also reduces the wrinkles. Both conditions are very desirable to obtain some laminarity in the airflow, at least up to the maximum thick~ nese of the airfoil. This is en ideal condition difficult to reach, but if obtained, will result in a general improvement in the performance. a) Manufacturing Advantages The construction of an all-metal omall eirplane does not require @ big invest ment in tooling or machinery. Double curved parts much and can be avoided, but single curvature instead of flat panels is desired to reduce oil canning and improve stiffness. The inexperienced builder can learn the riveting process faster than the welding. A bad rivet can be detected, drilled out and replaced, Walle @ burned welded joint requires more experience to be saved. Furthermore, a bad rivet in a row represents a small per cent strength reduction, while @ ad welded Joint can be a 100 strength loss. 1-7 WHY CANTILEVER WING? With a 15% chord-thickness ratio airfoil, it is possible to build a cantilever wing with a weight comparable to a strut braced. It is not only the weight of ‘the basic members that mist be considered in the comparison, but also the extra fittings, bolts, turnbuckles, etc., along with the added loss in aerodynamic efficiency due to the additional parasite and interference drag. Finally there is the aesthetic consideration which was Giscussed on previous pages.ever low wing airplane, as heavy machined fitt So, as a compromise, were tried. ‘he yidth of the center panel wes fixed at 92" he highway regulation: lete design was made, and final hree different types of s were developed. None of m looked satisfactory. They were too complicated and too heavy. So finally 4 to redesign the whole wing, but thie time wita a different con- to tow the airplane to an eirport or back hone for maintenance or repair vork once in a vaile. on of the wing to the fuselage is made by means of two bolts at about two dozen of platenuts and bolte along the wing drag ‘The conne the main s elevator push-pull tube since the con trol column and the flap lever are ral parts of the wing. The seats are built integral witn the wing alco. The "on wing and the the tail surfaces inst can be accomo: a trailer and towed on a highway.umopiworg qusoduog ~ ,teaTMYT, [Td Atwmang - € “Bra1-9 WHY A RECTANGULAR WING? Fron theoretical considerations and from pressure distribution tests, it can be denonstrated that the ideal wing form is the elliptical because it has the Smallest induced drag. But using the seme theory and teste, it was found that a rectangular wing of aspect ratio 6 bes only about 5 per cent greater induced drag then that of an elliptical. Between these two wing plan forms, there is the tapered, which has roughly one per cent more induced drag then the elliptical. Both elliptical and tepered wings ellow a lighter spar construction, but these advantages are of small importance when compared with the better stalling char- acteristics and simplified construction of a rectangular wing. In the NACA Report 927 (Ref. 4), "Appreciation and Prediction of Flying Quali- ties," useful information can be found relating to the stalling characteristi: as a function of wing plan form. Also, almost all the problems of the aero- dynamic design are covered. If the degigner does not have enough of a mathe- matical background, the formulas should be left out and the text read thoroughly and still provide aeny good ideas and basic knowledge. Figure 4 shows the influence of the wing plan form on the stall properties. All wings are untwisted. It is evident thet the rectangular planform has the best stall characteristics. ‘The stall begins at the root of the wing progress- ing toward the tips, thus the ailerons remain effective while the center part of the wing is already stalled. LEADING EDGE, RECTANGULAR WING FLLPTICAL WING LEADING EDGE ¢ LEADING EDSE SWEPT-BACK WING SWEPT FORWARD WING Fig 4. STALL PATTERN AS FUNCTION OF ANGLE OF ATTACK Photos were made during stall investigations of the Pl-L laminar, The test ions were 1400 rpm, 000' altitude, and the stalls were approached very cond: inst the horizon with gradually so the angle of attack could be measured ag more or less accuracy. The first photo (see next page) shows the wing stalling with the flap retracted. econd photo shows the stall with maximum flap deflection.@ that the outboard section of the wing is eron oth photos, the tuf rectly on the iin the boundary16 +10 WHY LOW WING? Tae most dangerous parts of every flight probably are the take-off, landing, and flying the pattern. Visibility in a turn is greatly desired during th vers. In a high wing aircraft the visibility during these cri reduced mostly toward the inside of the turn. These considerations alone will ie the choice between h! and low wing, but there are man ers that can be enumerated. cal monents is © and simple reasoning indicate that the nore e and the ground, in case of crash, the higher are A lot of energy can be dissipsted in a low wing In a high wing airplane cra: energy ing the landing gear, the fuselage nose, ove starting with the will be Gissipated by successfully colle: the occupants and finally the wing. ints, the fuselage cross-sectional area of a low wing ane could be made smaller than of a high wing; the occupants could be seated he wing. In the Fi-l, the seat is directly built-in between the main spar and the rear auxiliary sper. The seat sheet metal is also part of the carry through torque box. In a bh ing airplane, the occupants cannot sit directly on the floor because it will be very tiresome. Tuerefore, a seat has to be pro= vided to take place of the previously mentioned torque box, -but the high wing could not be los oportionally because the complete loss of visibility. aerodynamic viewso: The interference drag o s is generally smaller than of a low wing, but a good wing root fillet could reduce this disadvantage. From structural considerations, the low wing has many advan concentrated loads in a small airplane are the oc reacted directly by the low wing. This is not the case f these loads should be transmitted from the seats to the at this represents a weight penalty. ges. The largest high w: ans the fuselage bending material has to be concentrated in either w the door cut-out. type structures. In welded truss ty designed into one of the truss modules presents a weight penalty very shalio With semi-monocoque lage bending material could be designed into two deep beams forming the fus sides, resulting in a derable weight saving. The main landing gear struts in a low wing air can be very short if they are attached to the wing © This represents a minimum weight and parasite drag. ‘The wing spar does not need to be strengthened to take the landing gear oads because the air loads are critical. In the PL-1 airplane, the main gear and the nose gear shock absorbers are identical; therefore, a reduction in milar parts has been achieved. (See photo next nage)ease {1 is not only to provide high reciable val! 1. mechanism can be very simple in the low wing con- In the Pl+l, the flap mechensim consists basically of a lev push-pull tube and a bora directly attached to the flep rib as shown Obviously this simplicity cannot be achieved with = high wing arrange- 1-11 CRASH WORTHINESS sh, but statistics have shown that a few urviveble, but man: urvival are great sed to ¢ ashes in rough terrain a conditions that the chan: lanes are not Every effort should be made de adequate case of a survivable crash. The wing tip tanks feature since the only fuel in the fuselage will be contain houlder harness and the tions spe: lage, safety belts, designed to take the ultimate a: velow.18 ‘actor - of comparison, the U. $. Navy requires 40 g's (ultimate) load fe. Airplane crash investigations have shom thet even i S, the occupants are cubjected to accelerations well over 9 g's. As a matt: e their at mila accident consideration is that the nents or structure behind the occupants. A battery installed in the tail cone of the fuselage becomes a missile in a crash, and pusher engines should be directly forbidden by regulation. @ should be no heavy comp 86 establishes thet penetrating or relatively solia objects should be . To be added that the fuselage structure should be designed in such a way that it will bend or break outward, away from the oc pants in case of an accident. The cockpit upper longerons in the Fl-1 are curve outward so that under @ compression load they will bend out. The instrument panel should be collapsible to avoid head injuries and the heavy instruments should mounted on shear pins and as low es possible. CAR 3 avoided in the In other words, the two most important considerations in crash worthiness are: 1. If the cabin of the airpli ‘the occupants shoula surv! e did not collepse as a result of an accide dent fataliti 2, Nearly 60 per cent of the aircraft ac ‘The next more dangerous deted2 i statietics have Again, own that in many mild accidents where the cockpit remained survivable, the control wheels are slammed forward by the force of the crash the cockpit is and if no shoulder harness is provided, the torso will be free to rotate and the head wil ‘the control wheel. In ott producing cl rv cases, the control wheel is pushed backward when the firewall collapses, st injuries--just as in typical car accidents. The PL-1 airplane has stick controls which, firstly, are short and very dif?ic to hit even with bent chest. Secondly, the elevator push-pull tube inertia, in case of & crash, will push the control sticks away from the occupan'19 Another very common pré energy absorption capac is as follows: se of foam rub: lows which haveno quence of vhat generally happens in a crash ground and the structure st arts compressing the foam rubber cushion. collapsing, The ng d provide any breaking . The cushion finally is completely depressed, and now the passenger hits the seat struct n the Initial velocity; but the seat, due to the rebound, is already going up resulting in a "hea@ on" collision. This of load’on a numan body generally produces vertebral injuries. ‘he sols ts @ crusheble material such as foamed polystyrine or expanded polyvinyl chloride (commercially, ensolite). This 1 med, cenented and heat formed. Taere is a great amount of information about airpl tions such as the Flight Safety Foundation, Tne Phoenix, Arizona--are devoted to this subject and w: upon request. erash worthiness. Institu- Sky Harbor Boulevard, 11 provide extensive a 1-12 AIRFOIL $21 TON a) Structural Consideratio: a beam which has to carry a certain ben to the square of the depth of the beam, will house the deepest beam, and this in turn will ntest construction, Fig, 7 The lift force in an airfoil is epproximately located at 30 per cent of the ‘the maximum thickness is also at 30 p be the ideal location for the main spar. fe MWe 1 his wil considerations are not valid, The front spar is spar at 65 per cent Cs resulting ina heavier In 8 two-spar wing, th generally located at 10 per cent C, and Doth are points at shalloy structure20 ») Aerodynamic Considerations TABLE 3 Airplanes using "laminar" Airfoils Airplane Country Places | HP. Airfoil | Wesener Super IV France 4 63.618 | Plechio F15 Italy 4 646 series Acromere Falco Italy 2 6ho series | Aviamilano Nibbio F14 | Italy 4 640 series Buklund Finland 1 633-618 Heinonen Finland 1 GAzAuI8 root | 633AN12 tap Piper Cherokee USA 4 652-415, TABLE Gliders using "laninar" Airfoils Glider Country Weight (tbs) oul Super Javelot (WA 22) | France 750 630 series Staniard (SF 26) W. Germany 683 €3p-615 Fhénsegler (Ka ck) | W. Germany 661 63-618 D 3lad W. Germany ~ Bon 463 England 600 Standard (R-25) Hungary 661 Mg 23 Austria 794 Strale (cvP-) Ttaly ee 25/6lig~512 Delfin 62 Yugoeslavia OL 18 M Bdelweiss (C-30) France 838 700 series standard Austria Austrie ne | 652-ha5 Foka (S2D-24) Poland 688 Sagitta Netherland 705 He 201 | 750 Vasema (PIK-16) éi7 2efir 2 893, | Assegai (BJ2) South Africa Bho | Yovette (Br 901 5) France us 63 series | Skylark 4 end 830 639-620/6815 | HKS 3 . Germany 838 65315 ni { Favorit (Lom 61) E. Germany 633 659-6155 Aa15 Russie 836, 643-618 643-616 HP-i0 USA 825 65-618 Mods Sisu-1 UBA mi 653-418 | Meteor Yugoeslavie 1,113 639-616.5 EC ho Ttaly 1,058 65=620/0009 Blanik (1-13) Czechoslovakia! 1,012 Soh -615/632-A612) Capstan (7-49) England 13250 | 633-620/6412 | Gxoueas (Br 906) France job 652820/63-013 | Re6 UEA 12,226 63p-615,i 1 21 Iooking at Tables 3 and |, evidently the nevest "laminar type" airfoils were used in high performance airplanes and gliders all over the world. Unfortunately some designers seen to be reluctant to investigate the advan- tages of uodern airfoils and recent designs are still using the prehistoric Clark Y or the obsolete 23012. The following lines are reproduced from NACA TH 1945 (Ref. 7) pege lb: "In the smooth surface condition, the two NACA 230- series sections are seen to possess extremely undesirable stalling characteristics at nearly ‘the Reynolds Numbers," and other: "In the rough surface condition, nearly all of the plain airfoils have good stalling characteristics at most Reynolds Nunbers, The NACA 230- series sections and,at the higher Reynolds Tumbers, the NACA 0012 sections are notable exceptions for even in the rough condition the stalling characteristics of these airfoils ere rather undesir- able," meaning of these words can be seen in Fig. 9 where Section Lift Coef- ficient curves for four different airfoils are plotted. tty LH a) [ro enon 06 sepaesroN 6 wo 5 s 63 615 T FIG 10. FLOW SEPARATION Looking at the 23015 curve it can be seen that it reaches @ CImax = 1.2 and then drops sharply. This sudden loss of lift indicates a leading ¢ separation produced by far forvard location of the maximm camber. ae 4415, 630415 and the 632-615 airfoils show a gradual stall related to a more rearvard location of the maximum camber as shown in Fig. 10. In NACA "Industry Conference on Personal Aircreft Research"(Ref, 2) there is a paper titled "Development of Airfoils and High-Lift Devices" by L, H. loftin Jr. ‘rom which the following peragrephs are reproduced: 2 of low drag eirfoils are no worse than h the surface "In any case, however, the characteris hose of conventional eirfoils and, if sufficient care is taken wi dition, definitive advantages are associated with their use."Crt CoCo ea > husgysoce yuowoly y 9 8 ery le 3 : i Jz" a ° a eos lor a azo i? lve ez ecsymbols represents 4 "9" symbols correspond to smooth a: curves are not entative of conventional on page 22 of "effect of surface irregulai e3 even when extensive laminar flow the gains that may be ex ining smoo r ACA 6- or 7-series eirfoile when extensive leniner Such polishing or waxing ha vimensional Low~turbul: sat: included angle of ly near the leading edge, will cause the eke flow airfoil data obtained in the nel Include results ete For instance, on ca & “etandard roughness" 2 rises Coefficient, oy,, and é xv "smooth" airfoils, the rise is alm al; in fact, the cg curve forms 8 bucket between cy = = +.6. ais is called the "Laminar Low Drag > Bucket". The and T-series airfoils are coded in the air~ foil wmbering system. Assuming that the amateur is already familiar with the NACA 4 ana systems, a brief explanation of the meaning of the 6- and eries digits will be made Series Designation —~ \\ time thickness, t/¢ Position of Minimum range in tenths above and below of q. dow drag exi in whichTue first digit “PRESSURE sTe.BUTON | PEAK AT G20 > att tf Tia 15 Section dag coefficient 64 Lg ao epee = $ 5 Section lift cxefficient 6 6 “he FIG,[3- DRAG BUCKET FOR WACA 6826/5 FIGI2, PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION OV NACA 6390/5 The third digit and the fourth digit define the shape and locat: L in Figure 13. The fourth digit (6) is the design 1ift coefficient, and the third the lov drag range at both sides of the design lift Tae determination of the Design Lift Coefficient (c,) is described next. As the tine the airplane is flying at cruise speed, this will be the Speed in mph W = Airplane Average Weight #1250 Ibs. ‘In Figure 14, the Section Drag Coefficients (cg) for four different airfoil are shown.dag coefficient , cd & Section & 4 0 4 8 Section Lift coefficient, ¢) FIG. 14. AIRFOIL DRAG COMPARISON For thee, = .35, the minimn Tae number "4" in the airfo: minimum cq whenc1 = +40. ‘The 63,615 airfoil bas almo: the U15 have higher val From the previous considerati 15 will be the right choice, but i order to have a better ceiling, the 632615 was selected. When the airplane is flying at high altitude, the angle of attack is niger; this in turn means greater drag (cq). At bigher cy the 632615 has less drag than the 639415. Another reason in the selection is tha are compared (see Fi 632415 has ac. when the Section Lift Coefficient (¢,) gure 9), the 63,615 has a Imag = 1+32s therefore, landing speed without flep is slightly Tae main disadvan: 2 63,615, coctficient cy,» vaich for the 63,615 4s tead of 63gh15 1 -.110 and for the 63,h15 tionally larger trim drag. A greater negative elevator in a pr deflection for trim will be necessary to compensa for the larger nose dovn monent. In the previous pages, the term "Reynolds Munber" (abbreviated R.N.), was zeationed several ‘Any good Aerodynamics text book will have a defi- nition o: RAM. For pre irposes, the folloving equation can be used: =v xe x 6,380 Speed in tps ng Mean Aerodynamic Chora26 ane flying a 110 mph with a wing alculate the R.N. of en ain Ie we desi chord hes, ve should proceed Llow Speed in speed in mph = 1.466 v= 110 mph x 1.466 = 161 fps feet = Chord in inches x + Chord in feet = Che a + c+ 50x. B substitut: ‘the equation for R. RN. © 161 x 4.17 x 6,380 = 4,280,000 In previous pages we have seen that moat of the data presented by TRO are for R.N. = 3,000,000, 6,000,000 and 9,000,000. It is evident that the Section Lift Goeffieient (c;') teaches higher values at the highest R.N.; on the othe: hand, the Section Drag Coefficient (cg) is always sualler at highest RN. our airplane has a R.l. = 4,280,000 at a certain flying condition, it seems optimistic to use the values for R.N. = 6,000,000 (standard roughness). On the other hend, if the wing surface results in a very good quality, ve mey expect better values than the "standard roughness." Therefore, the "standard roughness", R.N. = 6,000,000 will be a good compromise for all practical pur- poses. In Teble 3 is listed the "Heinonen" airplane which uses 613 AML8 airfoil at the tip. Also, in Table 4, the "Blanik 1-13" glider uses 2°63, A615 eirfo.l at the root and 63 A612 at the tip. 2 The meaning of the letter "A" in the code is that the basic airfoil has been modified to eliminate the trailing edge cusp ac shown in Figure 15 @ deeper rib at the trailing edge whic or ailerons. ‘Tae aerodynamic characteristics are practically original airfoils with the exception of the Moment Coefficient (cy,.) which The amateur builder could develop his own "A" information contained in TR82K and TR903 (Ref. 8). ne same as the is slightly more negative nodified airfoils using As an exemple of this method, the ordinates for the 63,8215 airfoil are cal- in Table 5. culatser { MOO O1O19| OO O/G G8] 1G) 258? | mean ine ans) Wy = x-y4-Si0 8 Yor e+ yeeos 8 Kea Xr yc 6 ee - ye 08 fy ele T T ran b= ‘tan T, x |e | ie Se | i [RE | sme lee |y.cing pene] x | y | a | ye ae iF =)? |- [= [= |? [6 rn 5} 4202 | 28 755) | 086 | 09s! | omen | goss | 88 | 1185 2862 6058 |91.139 ns)iade | ave| eace | “ow | ‘esse | ‘oem! ogee | Lier |ngso | “ee0alisig | ‘am user 15,1604 ize | emi | ‘07ers sees | ‘1453 [cose | (10a7|1956 | (3953/0718 5 |2s79| 1055 zee | ai) | aces | .ceose g07@ | ine |aseo | 25284 277) | 2eTI6|-2549 £0 |2er6 | .ece! 273 | 36) | .0=e3 osog apese | |)955 |3610 | 4B0e5\297) | 5.1955|-3.249 TS | 43e2 24e% 486 | 06676 .0H68! 2060 (4.280 | 7.2940\4886| 7.7069|-3e98 2 |asr7| e08|| 2008 | 590) 2a2e | owes _izer 4997 sr esis | eser|-4dor (| 598| seer 11 28309) 0315 | Tia |ssee | sssoee eres | 971 ee fee | 465i 1930 oaese | c26%% im |eeia | iaeeeo)7e29| 20:70 [5.609 ze yes | seer te | ce! | gains | 22a) juss [e051 | zxanee e142 | Zeiss -easo 30 |736¢ 1 £mz 19a | 01719 | ome | lizee | 738¢| eene|esse! 30.08 |-6236 | 7296 | e120 ‘gee | a1e99) Le1g09 | 99957 | ‘see | 2496 | 24905 |a720) asceee-ecre se | 7485) 633 c6807 | 1279 c04C) 06) | 49RE | osg 1488 | 399% 87Ne 4 |reis esr) .oze8e| 1314 | ocee| ‘o0sie! 99909 | 0369 | 2215 | 4.9651 |2.579 & \6ass| 665!) 1332 | 00 | Looe | 99999 | cogs | 6856) 499917| 688 ss 6367 lees! |-ciase | 1326 |- 0068: |-,c0¢6! 0179 | 6387 550179|7713 @ | seco! esse 03687 | 1300 |-.0%7|-.0707 | 99999 |-.0873 | sez0 600878) 2122 | a | 5173 | ez -osee7 | 1.268 \-.0177 |-.0177 | 99993 |= 0408 | 5173 | 6.c608| 6.226! 12 aes ase |-o8ei0 | ne |-o17e2 |.99985|-. 068 | 4.68 | 70.065 |=65/ 63.7082|-3.208 1 [321 sa |oiase | 1s |- 004i |-ceaio| 9997) 0698 | 278) | T0874) | %90) | 2651 80 | aes) a3 viecse | 988 -.036c7|-oasos | 99985 |= 1017 | 291 82.1077 | 2926) Ta.s%e3|-2.056 es | 2252 s6er sea4so 72) asene| -. 04680 9030 |zioea | 250 |esioss [2978] manus [531 4 |isi2 sas bese) 490 moeted| 04698 99079 | Cro | Ue | 90.040 |2 062 a7.teeo|~)08P 9S | 772) 1zee 2452! | 2s |-.cdte)~ 04898 | 99879 |~087E | .712 | 250878 | 10/7 | 94.9600 |~ 527 sme lose o seeses_ 0s oenal~caene| avers 0187 | ‘230 lwnaeoe a2e| 09,000 |= oae EXPLANATION OF THE DIFFERENT STEPS IN TABLE 5 Column @ena(@)- ordinates for 63pA0L5 Basic Thickness from page 206 of TRIO3 2 for Mean Line a = 0.8, cy, = 1.0 from page 210 of TR903 4 = Slopes for Mean Line a = 0.8, cl, = 1.0 from page 210 of 72903 G@ana@)- As the desired airfoil 63pA215 has a cz, = .2, the values of colums @ene@are multiplies by .2 to obtain columG)ana@)respectivedy. @ana®- mowing "tan "e", the velues of "sin "6" and "cos "9" are found ina trigonometric table. - yy, ein@ = OD = y_ 008 O = ~2x® x+ yz sin® © OG OO1-13 WING AREA DETERMINATION of the landing speed. In Table 6, the landing speeds or stalling 3 severe) well know airplanes are Li tunately, some manufacturers list thelr landing speed as stalling "Alrplane Performance Stability and Control” by Perkins & Hage, (Ref. 10), Page 199, the landing speed is estimated 15 per cent higher than speed. The wing area is a TABLE 6 - Lending Speeds (Vy) Piper PA-ll... 37 mph Piper Co Aeronca Champion. Suith Miniplane.. Cesena WOseeseceeeee ell mph Cessna 182...+eeeeeee 56 mpl Mooney Mite «e043 mph Stits Skycoupe. -o7 mph Globe Swift +3. mph Nesmith Cougar 2659 mph Tusconbe Si 5 Beech Bonanza..++++.+.+60 mph Fournier Ereoupe Meyers 200, ses:62 mph Cesane 150..++ Waltman Tailwinds ......65 mph Ravionsesesees Eeuberger Siz: 2.68 mph therefore, the landing speed fy, = 115 x 50 = 57-5 mph is value seems fairly conservative compared with the values listed in Table 6. The lift equation at sea level is: 2 Sax Vex Cy hew 390) Sy = Wing area in square feet Ana solving for speed "V" [wu 30 V = Speed in mph 5) x ¢ v 1, = Wing Lift coefficient ooking at the last equation, ve could do several things to reduce the landing speed. First - Reduce Weight (W), which is always desirable, but rather dirficult. Second ~ Increase Wing Area (Sy). This is possible, but it will ada weight and drag. Taira - Increase Lift Coez tem to work on. A to do it. cient (Cy). Tai s is probably the most appropriate and high lift devices are the waysGeneral Chara: Assuming Gq, witt be Tax, “A # Hote(£lap angle) —=Figure Replecing in the equation: ACy = 1604 x 66 x 1.27 = 792 The flap does not affect the whole wing; therefore, the lift increment just calculated must be reduced accordingly to the flep span. On page 11 of the same British report we found: Ac," nt =n * d; Pr . flap span 2 6 _. rigure 19+)g=.67 >” wing span 4. AG! = 79 x 667 = 253 During the flare-out, the tail is producing a down load which should be sub- tracted from the wing lift, but the wing in proximity of the ground will develop a higher Cy, These two opposite effects are approximately of similer magnitude; therefore, we assume that they cancel each other. The R.N. for stalling speed is calculated next. RM. = 6360 x ex Vg ¢ = mean aerodynamic chord = 6380 x 4.17 x 73.2 = = 50" = kay tt. = 1,950,000 Vgr 50 mph = 50 x 14466 = 73.2 fps31 Pron Figure 11 on page 22, the 6,000,000 and st + the plain 63;615 airfoil at R.N. ard roughness is Plain Airfoil cy) = 1.36 Tmax For the calculated R.N., this value will be reduced. Also on Figure 11, we can read for the 63,615 plain airfoil (smooth): 9,000,000 | 1.66 6,000,000 | 1.58 3,000,000 | 1.46 In Figure 20, the three values of c, for the smooth airfoil are plotted. mee Point A is the single value for the rough airfoil (Cres 1.38). Assuming that the decrease of ax With reduction in R.N. is straight, @ line is traced at point "A" parallel to the "smooth line”, and by extrapolation point "BY ds found at a RN. = 1,950,000. At this point the ey | will be 1.25. To the corrected value of c, for the plain airfoil, we can now add the flay lmese PI D ion calculated before. = Plain Wing C, +AC," 7 PE Tex “OD (even) Chaage 7 E25 + 53 = Le Now we have all the ingredients to calculate the wing ares. The lift equation on page 28 can be solved for wing ares: . ft. Sy = eH x 1300 *Otmex, 502x178eatly affe te theories a, Therefo! mental d A car movini agai a certain speed ame car riding on loos © 8 greater power to move at the same Induced Drag. In an airplane, the wing i air, and thas to climb out to maintain alti If the same car wer ride wuch easier over the sand. way to get out of trouble with standard tires is happen: airplane; a high Aspect Ratio w. Now that we are all convinced tion is how much? ain power to move the car at sand will sink continuously and ais increase in power pporting nat @ high Aspect Ratio is bene-In Figure 21, the poler diagrams for a series of wings with different aspect ratios are shown. It can be seen that there is not too mich difference between AR = 7 and AR = 6 curves, but certainly there is a great difference br AR= 2 and AR© 1. For light conventional airplanes a good compromise aspect ratio is about 7. A smaller aspect ratio wi. ive Induced Drag, penalizing mostly the climb end ceiling. On the other hand, aspect ratios over 7 result in excessively reduced wing chords. When we calculated the Stalling Speed, the Reynolds Num- ber effect on (| was analyzed and we remember that the smaller the R.N., more reduction in ¢, Remember that R.N. is a direct function of the wing chord. Tax From structural view point, the advantages of a small aspect ratio are double; first, because a larger chord will provide a proportionally larger depth for the wing spars, second, a shorter wing represents smaller bending moments, which in turn requires lighter spars. We caleulated the wing area as 115 sq. tt. ‘The equation for A.R. ii Solving for b (wing spen): b=VAR x Sy And substituting values: Txils = (805 = 28.3 et. A round number will be easier to remember, so let us make the epan 28 ft. The average wing chord is calculated nextA number will be we recalculate the w on these rounded figur it was decided to use wing tip fuel tanke, m f elliptical (see In the Laminar ai on safety reasons. By making the t is increased. A relation in @ maximum height of n end plate. ct ratio and thi, Fluid-Dynanic Drag’ Other equations givenThe corrected aspect A+AA The two equations ere in good agreement, we can AR, = 7.30 for future calculations 1-15 WHY FLAES? From a constructional view point, it is easier, in this project, to make the wing with flaps than without them. The aileron and flap ribs will be exactly ‘the same, otherwise a special form block would be necessary for continuous ribs. ninking, both aileron and flaps are piano-hinged oposea flap wi! ain type, which is the effective. The increase of Cy... provided by this small (ACraa, = 53), but still will provide a landing speed reduction cal- implest, but not the most ype of flap is relatively culated as 10 mph. em i SoS so (3 Anne =e ITHOUT FLAPS fle 25. 6LIDE PATHS Tae second advantage of wing flaps is the increase in drag, resulting in a stecper glidepath, as shown in Figure 25. The landing distance over an obstacle of 50! can be calculated with @ simplified equation given by AGARD Report No. 81 (Some Factors Affecting the Field Length of STOL Airplam Ref. 19). « Bows.) “Tae here: 25 (Plain Wing) 1.78 (Flapped Wing)4o2 + 498 = 900 ft. 1-16 WING AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS The section aerodynamic characteristice of the 63,615 airfoil vere given in Figure 11. These curves represent an Infinite Aspect Ratio wing and eannot be used directly to determine the actual wing characteristics. Corr based on Aspect Ratio should be made. For nary design, only the 1 curve with flap down and flap up are necessary. In Figure 26 the section ift curves for the 633615 (R.N. Standard Roughn: 6,000,000 -- ss) are reproduced. ‘The slo} this plot. Within the strai a convenient angle of attack increment (Ad, ing increment in the Lift coefficient; ia th for the section (Infinite Aspect Ratio) will be: The 1ift cw a Finite Aspect Ratio can be ca following equation from NACA TR665, "Calculation of teristics of Tapered Wings with Partial Span Flaps" (Ref. 1). ed with the e Aerodynamic Chart a Ty GES) TA Tae slope lift curve factor "f" is plotted in Figure 27also from NACA R665. ie3t Figure 26 -+082 ving for Mey And if we select again Adi= 10°: = .082 x 10 = .82 These values ar (1, plotted on Figure 26. Note that the angle for zero lift } does not change with asp Then, the ctraigh? portion ia be traced. The curved upper part of the curve could the following method. Froject the straight portion of the section lift curve up to the level of eo = 1.40, (Point "A"), Measure the distance in degrees between Foint "A" which is i for thie airfoil. On page 31, we found that ein wi ne Chae trace @ line at this level. Project the straight portion of the 1 up to intersect the Cjy,, Line; obtain point "B", Measure 4° trom poir to locat int for Cy 0 locate the point for Cy. curve, complete the w: ing the same curve as used lift curve. Souewhet similar procedure can be used to trace the flapped wing 1 Sone simplifying asoumptions could be made? (1) The Plapyed airfoi’ curve is parallel to the unflapped airfoil Lift curve. in Figure 26, where the curve for the ic is substantiated sted 60° elope. 15 with a epli ym. ‘The dashed line was traced parallel to tt The zero Lift angle for the flapped airfoil dy In Figure 28, a series of curves are plotted, the zero lift angie (A ) as a funct! flap. For ep/e = +25 } ana dp hor39 ‘The calculated Ad) Js for © wing with full span flep. For partial span flap, the displacenent will be proportional. Therefore: Ad), = = x bdr,= 6 x 12.5 = -7.5° Finally, the zero lift angle for the partially flapped wing will be: heady +A) = -5° 27.5% =-10.5° Ae p ofa, Tie point is plotted in Figure 26 and a straight line perellel to the plain wing lift curve ie traced. f ‘Te maximum 1ift coefficient for the flapped wing was found on page 31. Cingaye = 1-78 A line is traced at this level and point "0" is located. The shift of the Cipgay POLMt For the 63,615 with split flap is 1.5°. This value could be used to locate the Cy,,,point for the partially flapped wing. On page 2lt, the Design Lift Coefficient was calculated: The corresponding angle of attack from Figure 26 is: ! l= 15° and is also the wing incidehce (i) with respect to the fuse- | Lage horizontal reference line. A slightly smaller incidence was used in the Pl-l, corresponding to @ Vg = 120 mph.ho The angle of atteck for ian Figure 26 that the angle of attack for Cy é: than vhe one with fla and tail on the 12.5°). ‘Therefore, the landing gear pos: attitude. The "Ground Effec sights less than one semi-span above the ground will have i higher altitudes. The air is compressed between the Wi This effect is equivalent to an increase in Aspect Ratio, which 4 curve slope as we have seen before. Figure 29 is reproduced from NACA WR 1-95 Report (Ref aveweneenes ground effect altitude FIG, 30. GROUND DISTANCE dgdust » on the 35".1-17 SMPENNAGE DDMENSTONING The teil surfaces of an airplane have to meet two basic requirements: ability and control. The design of tail surfaces, the determination of eiz size, position, angle of incidence is not an easy problen. The effects of factors such as slipstream, downvash, interference, C.G. posi- on, Reynolds Number, and many otherscomplicate not only the problem, but also obscure the basic concepts for the amateur designer. Even today, for the tail surface design should be complimented with mostly when the design is unconventional. the great amount of research data, the analytical spproach jin@ Tunnel testing The amateur designer willing to tackle the design of a Delta or Tail-less airplane will be foolish to risk bis life without et least taking some college courses in Stability and Control, run soue wind tunnel testing and have the data analyzed by experts. For conventional configurations, the problem is well defined, but still com plex. The reading of some textbooks such as Airplane Performence Stability and Control by Perkins & Hage is strongly recomended. For this inary design phase, we do not need to dip into differential equations; it will be enough to use the old Egyptian method of "follow the leader.” Let's have some statistics. But first, with the eid of terminology will be defined. Figure 31, some VEETIIAL TAIL Mac HORIZONTAL TAIL MAC. dy FG, 31- TAll LENGHTS If we multiply the Area of the Horizontal Tail in ft. by the distance between the C.G. and the quarter chord point of the tail (1q) in ft-, we obtain "ft.3," 4nd cubie Zeet are used vo measure volumes, Taerefére, tne product (34 x 2p) is called Horizontal Tail Volume just for convenience. Same with the Vertical Tai! Vertical Tail Volume (ft43 The ola question of "how much tail eres” now should be chenged to "how much tail volume." This is more conventent decause it also ders the tail length. Comparisons based on tail area only,are misleading because 10 sq. ft. at the end of a short fuselage will not have the sane effect than 10 sq. at the end of a long one. But on the other hand, a 10 Zt.© tail at 10 from the C.G. vill have nearly the a 5 Pt.2 at 20 ft. from C.G, “Both'have the same "tail volume. 10 ft.2 x 10 ft. = 100 £t.3 5 ft.2 x 20 100 The bigger the "Tail Volume" the greater will be the airplane stability, waich 1s equivalent to allowable C.G. movement. An airplane with very small C.G, movement will need a relatively emall tail volume. A conventional to place airplane, with the occupants seating over the C.G., and the fuel also near the C.G. will require less tail volume than a transport airplane, where @ passenger could be seated far away from the C.G. It is always convenient to use non-dimensional coefficients for comparative purposes. Therefore, if we divide the "Teil Volume" by another volume such as Wing Area (?t.) x Wing Chord (ft.) = £t.3, we obtain a dimensionless expression called Volume Coefficient. Sa% lf - Yq (Horizontal Tail Volune Coefficient) And for the vertical tail we could Wing Spen) end obtain another no By x ly Byxb svide by the product of (Wing Area x dinensional expression: (Vertical Tail Volune Coefficient) In this manner, both tail surfaces are related to the wing area, but the horizontal tail is also related to the wing chord which has a great impor- ance on the airplane longitudinal stability and control, while the vertical tail is related to the wing span which has a great significance on directi: stabi a control.ah In Teble 7 are calculated Horizontal Tail Volume Coefficients for some well- xnown airplanes. The Piper J3 has the lower value (Vq = .340) while the Navion 692). These ext great spread. mes represent has the higher (TY; TABLE 7 HORIZONTAL TAIL STATISTICS Atmplane (et) aye | Ta | Piper J3 5-33 ekT Piper Cherokee 5.08 2.5 | beso 2.55 4.95 2.63 4,80 2.64 4ay 2.50 Luscombe Silvaire bly 21.7 28h ] Nesmith Couge 4.00 ik.0 2.83 Emeraude CP 301 4.33 2k.o 2.79 | 4.92 3h.2 2.97 5.22 42.8 2.96 = Tail Length Yq - Tot Volume Assuming thatthe C.G. 1s located at 25% M.A.C., the following generalized criteria for Vy selection could be used: TABLE 8 TAIL VOLUMES Tail Volune | Stability | Elevator Area Control Ty (Hor Sq) Eetectivene 1300 | Saat = ] ~ Poor Moderate 450 | Average Feir | woaerate o, Sot Slotted flaps Fair _ | HIBE Sane «700 God sh Cmac ery good * Te 100% Elevator Area represents the “All Movable Teil.”45 between the actual ¢.G. and the Neutral -@. location for wnich there would be no ies LS NEUTRAL Fane #16.32. STABILITY maReIN. (8m) stability. Consequently, a Large Stability Margin will cause the airplane to ret y to a trim speed after some aerodynamic disturbance such as a tum qu gust, even stick free (see Figure 33a). With small Stability Margin, the opposite is true and perhaps the airplane will not return to trim speed with the stick free (Figure 33b). y=90 aN NL V2 Lom, V= loo ~S 7 i W _— 220 | wast FI6, 8a, 7 STICK FitED 7 YS - ~ 1100 aN \ iz a Va 85 A-%0 i / “ NLL? OND ~— < NL 4 ak STICK FREE bolo Fé, 336 For the Laminar PL-1 we assume Vy = .1i30 and the tail length 1y/e = 2.75. Solving the tail volume equation for 84 16 = 18.2 sq. ft. 18.0 sq. ft. 375 = .h30 xlower value seems in heavier construction. And as a round to remer Tae tail chord all depends what ve want to do idea of the contro: we accurate determination o: wibed in detail it engthy calculator e that after investigati was found that an all-m @ the best cept of “fail Volume” (Ge) and ares are relat face Will provide beyond this value will no’ ctice to dimensi levator deflection has tae elevati ubject: The Deflectin ‘TABLE 9 VERTICAL TAIL STATISTICS Piper J3 3 Sain 215 3 Jode B-9 2 2 Silvaire 35. 3 3 3 3 ale 12.6 | .037 AS 18.0 +039hy Airplane | | T 1 Ryan Navion | | oho Bie ee as oo | | | be Beecheratt T-3 j 32 Midget Mastang sole Cesena T-37 A | 03 Cessna TL-19D 20l5 Sy bree Ty = Vertical Wine Sven Tail Volume bos Wing Seen Coefficient he general sequence described for the horizontal tail also for the vertical tail. An average value from Table 9 is 033. The equation for Vertical Tail Volume can be solved for tail area Sy: Sy = Wx Sdx = 1033 x] v= Wy x 0 33 The Vertical Tail arm (Iy) was selected based on several cut The idea vas to combine All the know values such as horizo position, ground clearence, aesthetics, structural arrangement, co hiss, eves, and also to obtain a cleat vertical tail for spin recovery as illus- trated in Figure 34 and discussed in detail in a future volume. The ‘izonteal teil blanks the vertical tail vithin the cross-hatched zone, To avoid this loss in effectiveness, the simplest ne vertical ahead Also sweeping for 1 will help, like in the Nooney airplanes, but aesthetics and "jet-age" styling push in the in it is a matter tall, (i ). Fors The anount of Rudder area was based in Fig 34 Directional Control calculations and resulted in 30% o: al. vertical tail area, But flight tests resulte indicated thet this ves not enough. A modification of the Pl-l incorporates a larger rudder area giving very satisfectory results. Daring the ea: a Veenta compared tage of design of the FL. was considered. Tt ibility of using and disadvantages4B From WACA Report 623 (Ref. 13), "Experimental verification of a simplified Vee- teil theory and analysis of available data on complete models with Vee~ we reproduce some of the conclusions: nterference because the Yee~ junctures. 2) less tendency tovard rudder lock. 3) 2 location o: surfaces, which tends to reduce elevate: ibilities o speed flight. in flying-boat take fail bufreting from tae wing and’ () Fever tail surfaces to manufacture. On the other hand, the analysis indicate the following disadvantages that = Yee-tail might have when compared with ¢ 4 ) ) 3) More complicated operating mech ik) Greater loads on tail and fuselage, which would tend to increase the weight." The relative merits of the Vee-tail and conventional tails for spin recovery have not been established, but it appears that the Vee-tail should be at leas as good as the conventional tail assembly in this respect, except possibly in cases in vhich simultaneous full deflection of both rudder and elevator is required for recovery from the spi On page 12 of the same report appears S, +8, = the following equation: S, = Surface of conventional horizontal tail Syee = Surface of Vee-tail y = Surface of conve: vertical tail ‘This means that the surface of a Vee~Tail is equal to the sum of the vertical and horizontal surfaces of a conventional tail, and not smaller as apparently it seems to be. FIG. 85. COMPARATIVE SIZE OF CONVENTIONAL AND “¥" TAILSPOWER PLANT v (1/10 scale) the 0-75, 6 same drawing can b CONTINENTAL C90-l2F : SCALE 10 cont. Rating 90 HP @ 0475 PM Take-off Rating: 95 HP @ 2625 RPM 759-4 1d TO REMOVE MAGNETOS 1 ‘TO REMOVE STARTER ba 1784 9 — 1,69 os Lig | by Revove eeteenroe REAR CRINKCASE FACE eee50 Air Corps Model C-21 and 0-22 i Jet aircraft is basically in Figure 37. ‘he 0-290-¢ : ye units which ne 9s the 0-290-D2B a could be purchased for $100 to $160 maxing it an extremely attractive por the hone-builder. ae LYCOMING 0-290 -D2B SCALE 1/10 135 HE @ 2600 @ 2 Magnetos Spark Plugs The PL+l was designed for the Con maximum continuous rating. The pr requiring only four spacers to make (See Photo). e C90-12 uses the ri tinental 0-200-A engine which has 100 hp otype airplane MO8LK was equipped with ‘the difference in the engine er cones, Waile the 0-200-A yeically the same. A 0-290-G is in the works. and a modified cowl has the Lord Mountings; otherwise both engines are redesign for the Lycoming 0-290-DeB or the converte Q s power plant requires a different engine mountin