Jump to content

Project Endeavour Cockpit Progress


Arbiter

Recommended Posts

Hi Folks,

I wanted to solicit some feedback on my project so far. Let me tell you a little bit about it first:

 

1. This is an entirely new Design. I am starting from scratch at the preliminary sizing level. I am not sure if it will be a conventional configuration or a Canard. I am leaning towards conventional, but have not made the down-select yet.

 

2. This aircraft as it stands now is 2-place tandem made from primarily composites with 1000lb useful load (2 place @ 325 Lb each + Bags and Fuel for 700+ nm Trips). This puts it at about 3200 Lb Gross Wt fully loaded. This is an aircraft for larger people. The thought with 325 Lbs is the airplane could be re-configured and widened eventually for 4 "regular" 170 Lb individuals (Decrease in the already ample baggage load to make up the difference in weight).

 

3. One simple design Philosophy. Visibility with speed and utility. Based on aircraft I've sat in I have almost always been dissapointed with the visibility, especially the passenger. I hope to solve this with my design while maintaining high cruise speed (150 Kts) and ample range.

 

Now that I have given you a quick background on Project Endeavour, I have a full-scale cockpit Mock-up in the works. Below are some pictures I would like feedback on. One thing to keep in mind is that none of the dimensions with the exception of the 22" seat width and the minimum 36" cockpit width have been fixed. Enjoy, and I look forward to the feedback you have!

 

 

Panel 1: This picture shows the over-all cockpit architecture. Notice the stadium seating arrangement. This is much like the BAE Hawk and Apache Helicopter. At this point the pilot is still sitting in the bottom seat, but I have been debating whether or not to place the pilot in the back... Either way, visibility will be un-obstructed. In the middle where the front seat-back is located will be a roll-bar. It is likely this will form a brace for the canopy and will be placed such that the rear passenger has a relatively un-obstructed view. The seat pans are 15 degrees up from horizontal, and the seat backs are 120 Degrees. There is a horizontal portion behind each seat I am planning on bolting the restraint systems to, though this may not be necessary and would save precious space if the shelf could be eliminated.

 

Note: The second deck will have an instrument panel of similar size, but will likely have one single display.

 

Panel 2: Shows a view looking down from the second deck (Though this is not necessarily what the passenger would be able to see). The dimensions show where the 22" seat width and the 36" total width are. I have an old Apache style military grip (Planning to use infinities with the hat switches on my actual sticks) approximately where the side-stick will be located. The cup represents the throttle quadrant (Sweet lever huh ;) ). When I measured the angle the instrument panel makes with the horizon from my eye level I should land somewhere between 18 and 20+ degrees nose down (Depending on seat cushion thickness). This will give great forward visibility if some other design constraint doesn't knock the nose out too far!

 

Panel 3: This is where I hope to get the most feedback. I am looking to build this aircraft within the next 10-15 Years ( This is not a hard time-line, afterall, this is a hobby) so projecting what avionics will be available is hard, to say the least. However, I believe Dynon is here to stay, and they are going modular, which is what I like. I am planning on having an auto-pilot and electric trim, and a completely glass cockpit capable of IFR. My panel philosophy is this:

 

-Maintaining control whilst pushing buttons is a must. Therefore, all buttons that may need to be pushed in most regular flight conditions, and those critical in the most common emergencies will be located such that I can use my throttle hand to operate them while fully seated.

 

-My main display will show and artificial horizon, Vertical speed, altitude, and airspeed. Com info, and a heading tape at the top would also be sweet but I am not sure if Dynon has this yet. If not, possibly an HSI at the bottom. The second display on the right will be dedicated to navigation and will serve as a back-up to the primary and vice versa if necessary. Also at the same level will be the engine monitor on the left.

 

-The left hand side will be where most of the switches and buttons are located. I am currently planning on using those cool Aveo Technology button stacks. The gear lever will be likely placed near the left side as well.

 

-The right side will be where the circuit breakers and Anunciators are. I will probably put the breakers on the side wall in front of the control stick since that will be easier to get to while seated with my back against the seat.

 

I am looking for ideas on how to reduce pilot work-load. I am planning on trying to utilize the stick mounted buttons as much as possibe (Electric trim, Comm, Xponder, Etc...)

 

Speaking of transponders: I am hoping that more companies will offer remote mounted GPS receivers, Transponders, and Nav Comms, because I want all that info displayed on the Dynons eventually without the equipment taking up extra panel space. I think this will be a direction industry will take. If not, then the panel space will dwindle accordingly.

 

NOTE: Speaking of sidewalls... There are none at this point. I will be adding them as I develop the shape of the canopy. They will probably stick up at most 6 inches from the panel interface...

 

Panel 4: This panel just shows the side view more closely. The panel is approximately 38.5 inches from the middle bulkhead.

 

 

 

Thank you for looking at my long post. I hope to invite some good discussion about my panel layout and the mock up! I'd be happy to answer any questions that I can at this point about my project! Thank you!

 

-Chris Zupp

post-8660-141090168983_thumb.jpg

post-8660-14109016899_thumb.jpg

post-8660-141090168994_thumb.jpg

post-8660-141090168999_thumb.jpg

Chris Zupp

~Aircraft Designer~

Preliminary Design Sequence I: Project Endeavour

Aeronautical/Mechanical Engineer

Private Pilot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bruce,

Thanks for the comment! I am hoping the canopy line will turn out to be angled straight at the bottom! At the moment I am planning on 2 canopies, one attached to the roll bar for the pilot, the other to the rear bulk head for the passenger. This may change if the canopies get too large, and I may go to a side folding like the Cozy or Long EZ.

 

-Chris

Chris Zupp

~Aircraft Designer~

Preliminary Design Sequence I: Project Endeavour

Aeronautical/Mechanical Engineer

Private Pilot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that I would consider, since you have, what appears to be a relatively wide fuselage and wide arm rests, make the rests a little (as much as possible) thinner so that upholstery (whether it be the plane, or yours:p ) can fit in better and be more comfortable. As one 'matures' the added width will be appreciated. Give youself as much hip room as possible. Less necessary as you go forward as your legs have to fit under the instrument panel.

I Canardly contain myself!

Rich :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a really special joystick for the throttle quadrant. It will act as a fluid dispensation system when not acting as a throttle ;).

 

Seriously, I just put it there to mark the approximate location of the throttle quadrant. There will be the throttle/mixture and possibly a pitch adjustment lever in that location. The idea will be to minimize the strain of the pilot's hand at the lower end of the throttle as much as possible. This is because if you have more dexterity and control of the throttle during a landing, you will be more precise. I remember when I was flying piper warriors I was always unhappy with the way the throttle was located. It was especially difficult to cut the throttle slowly and evenly during flare out, and I had to jerk the throttle around, making landing less smooth. I hope to change that with my design.

 

-Chris

Chris Zupp

~Aircraft Designer~

Preliminary Design Sequence I: Project Endeavour

Aeronautical/Mechanical Engineer

Private Pilot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give youself as much hip room as possible. Less necessary as you go forward as your legs have to fit under the instrument panel.

Hi Rich,

I agree! I am a big guy to begin with! One thing I did was have the Fuselage seats designed 22 inches wide. I have wide hips already and I still have room :) to both sides. I did make the arm rests big for that very reason though, so that if I need to I can thin them out again! I don't think I will need to do that though since the seat is already 22 in wide :). I am planning to pad the arm rests amply as well. I am starting to think about putting a Map Cubby behind and to the left of the pilot's shoulder. There will also need to be an initial ingress/Egress handle somewhere! Thanks for the suggestion, keep them coming!

 

-Chris

Chris Zupp

~Aircraft Designer~

Preliminary Design Sequence I: Project Endeavour

Aeronautical/Mechanical Engineer

Private Pilot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would make the forward instrument panel higher. It's good to have

extra panel space. This might help if the canopy rails need to be more level front to back.

Hi EracerFL,

I see your point about wanting to make the canopy rails more level! What I can probably do with the rails is make the side-walls level. Having about 15-20 degrees over-nose viewing is typical of military trainers so I am hoping to keep that. Since the aircraft will mainly be flown in VFR conditions, the IFR nature of the panel is more for emergency use if you happen to get cornered into a cloud or bad weather now and then.

 

I plan to use my airplane in good weather most of the time. If it came down to panel space being taken up, I would reduce the center screen size to the 7 inch and I would have plenty of space I think. Does this make sense? I go back to the core of my design with this one: Excellent visibility for both occupants (One reason I chose tandem seating, so the view left and right is the same for both occupants) while providing speed and utility. Thanks for the comments! Keep em coming!

 

-Chris

Chris Zupp

~Aircraft Designer~

Preliminary Design Sequence I: Project Endeavour

Aeronautical/Mechanical Engineer

Private Pilot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first thought would be to make it a mid wing and run the spar right under the upper seat.

Keith,

Great idea!!!! I've been thinking about it! I think it would be a low wing, but it could definitely fit the wing underneath the passenger. This would leave the engine, propeller and drive shaft to balance out the pilot mainly CG wise. This would help with structural synergy as well since the landing gear will likely go into the wing, and I could put the main supports into the bulk-head back behind the Pax.

 

There are only two things that give me pause to doing this. First is downward visibility for the passenger. I want them to not have to stare down at the wing if possible. Second, I was initially planning on placing the baggage compartment below the passenger. However, I have been contemplating a compromise! How about putting the passenger's butt essentially at 25% chord. They wouldn't be able to look down un-obstructed. However, this makes the CG shift very minor with varying pax weight, and the passenger will be able to see downward when they look slightly forward. Also, the baggage compartment, though smaller, would still be below the passenger. Great suggestion!

 

-Chris

Chris Zupp

~Aircraft Designer~

Preliminary Design Sequence I: Project Endeavour

Aeronautical/Mechanical Engineer

Private Pilot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like you are off to a good start. I see you know when you can and can't use a computer. even after all the computer work is done even the big boys get out the plywood and make things fit for real. may need more panel space. I don"t see any radios, transponder or intercom. may be in ten years they will have that stuff remote. but don't count on it. there is some remote stuff now but it is very expensive. don't plan on storing anything behind your head such as charts, plates, books, you will not be able to reach them. place important switches in front of the stick or throttle down low as it is much easier to hit the right one if your hand is supported during sever turbulence. for hip room think about angling the sides outboard at the bottom where your hips are. this seating configuration does require a large and high canopy but from this mock you will be able to refine the measurements down to make it just the right size. it will be a balance between the fuselage size and the size of the engine required to make it the right plane for your mission. with the weight and size you have now it looks like it will need 300 Hp to do the job. remember just a little bit bigger here and there will require a very much bigger engine. keep up the good work

Evolultion Eze RG -a two place side by side-200 Knots on 200 HP. A&P / pilot for over 30 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like you are off to a good start. I see you know when you can and can't use a computer. even after all the computer work is done even the big boys get out the plywood and make things fit for real. may need more panel space. I don"t see any radios, transponder or intercom. may be in ten years they will have that stuff remote. but don't count on it. there is some remote stuff now but it is very expensive. don't plan on storing anything behind your head such as charts, plates, books, you will not be able to reach them. place important switches in front of the stick or throttle down low as it is much easier to hit the right one if your hand is supported during sever turbulence. for hip room think about angling the sides outboard at the bottom where your hips are. this seating configuration does require a large and high canopy but from this mock you will be able to refine the measurements down to make it just the right size. it will be a balance between the fuselage size and the size of the engine required to make it the right plane for your mission. with the weight and size you have now it looks like it will need 300 Hp to do the job. remember just a little bit bigger here and there will require a very much bigger engine. keep up the good work

Lynn,

Great points, all of them! I felt making a dummy in CAD wouldn't get me anywhere near what I need for understanding the form, fit, and feel of the cockpit. If you look at panel 3 I believe I point to extra panel space that will be used for Nav/Comm if necessary. There is a remote transponder unit I found earlier that didn't seem too expensive that I will be using. I do think I will be able to fit everything in. I may build the panel out towards the pilot on the side walls for switches, Nav Comm etc... I will definitely take to heart the point you made about map cubbies. After what you said I agree with you and won't put something there!

 

As far as HP required is concerned I am currently in the 230 HP range. I am hoping to optimize my mission (Right now I have a loiter phase at a low L/D that is causing more fuel to be necessary) so I can get to around 215 HP. We'll see as more detailed design is done. One of the other reasons I am designing a higher performance airplane with heavy occupants is that the performance will be better as the weight of the occupants goes down. I will be starting the website within about 6 months where people can see the documentation of the design and hopefully learn about what it takes to do something like this thoroughly! Take care, and keep the comments coming!

 

-Chris

Chris Zupp

~Aircraft Designer~

Preliminary Design Sequence I: Project Endeavour

Aeronautical/Mechanical Engineer

Private Pilot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lynn,

 

 

One of the other reasons I am designing a higher performance airplane with heavy occupants is that the performance will be better as the weight of the occupants goes down.

 

-Chris

Goes down? don't you know that diets don't work. you mean when the heavier ones are replaced with lighter ones?

remember you can't have enough HP. this type of aircraft with about 300 HP will make a great performer. you can design to the exact HP that you need but engines come in certain HP's. if you need more then a 4 cylinder / 200 hp then you need to design for the bigger 6 cylinder engine 250 /300 HP. 300 HP does not weight any more then a 250 HP. please don't tell me that you are thinking alternative type HP. design a great plane and power it with a great engine made for flying.

Evolultion Eze RG -a two place side by side-200 Knots on 200 HP. A&P / pilot for over 30 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lynn,

I am not planning on getting too much lighter myself! What I am referring to is if someone else flies the plane that is lighter than me (170 Lbs or so) ;). As far as HP goes, I am mainly driven to a lower horsepower because of fuel consumption, and the fact that when you go from 215-230 HP to 300 you add 20K to the engine. An IO-540, at prices I've been looking at start at about 40K for a new or "zero-timed" engine. An IO-375 will run you 23-26K at Aerosport power brand spankin new. That's a huge incentive to remain within the horsepower range, don't you think? I don't disagree that the more HP the better for performance, but I am hoping to finish the project for less than 100K when all is said and done! To answer your alternate powerplant question: At this time I am not pursuing it. I've thought about it long and hard and I just would like a Lycoming/Continental behind me. The one fancy/complex thing I will be doing is making a shaft between the propeller and the engine. This will require one of those damper assemblies used on the Mini-imp to dampen out the oscillations on the shaft from the engine strokes. This is nothing new, it's just not that conventional. The reasoning for this configuration is so that I won't have to retract the forward gear because of CG issues, and that the engine will be mounted to the rear bulk-head that supports the wing. There will be 3-4 main heavy lifting bulkheads: 1 Between Pilot/Passenger, 1 Aft of passenger supporting fwd spar and possibly main gear, 1 supporting rear spar and engine mounts (This will be the fire wall). A fourth towards the rear will transfer loads from the tail and reinforce the thrust bearing in the tail-cone. This is just me thinking out loud at the moment. I am not sure this is the final primary structural arrangement, but it's what I am thinking at this point. Thanks!

 

-Chris

Chris Zupp

~Aircraft Designer~

Preliminary Design Sequence I: Project Endeavour

Aeronautical/Mechanical Engineer

Private Pilot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think looking at price as the deciding factor in powerplants vs a plane of your size is a funky amateur way to design an airplane. For the gross weight you are planning for you wil have a DOG if you pursue your engine plans and limp reasoning. Why screw up something that might have a chance of being good just because you dont properly power it? Trying to take off with that kind of GVW on a hot day will end you up in the weeds at the end of the runway, picking your teeth out of the "dashboard".

Your prices are off on 540's.

My IO540 with 9.5:1 pistons and 285hp will be right at 22k for a "to new limits" IO540... and Chris E's cost him <15k for an 260hp 0540 that had 1000hours or thereabouts on it. Jacks Eracer is at 29k approx for a completely rebuilt IO540 with 10:1 pistons in it and about 320hp.

So getting a proper powerplant for you project is a matter of acquiring and doing the engine right. Not just going to a vendor and plunking down money for something off the shelf. Thats the easy way/expensive way/uncreative way.

 

Good luck and I hope you see the light regarding your gross weight vs. your engine requirements. You could have a cool new plane if you gave it the right engine.

Cheers.

Self confessed Wingnut.

Now think about it...wouldn't you rather LIVE your life, rather than watch someone else's, on Reality T.V.?

Get up off that couch!!! =)

 

Progress; Fuselage on all three, with outside and inside nearly complete. 8 inch extended nose. FHC done. Canard finished. ERacer wings done with blended winglets. IO540 starting rebuild. Mounting Spar. Starting strake ribs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edge,

For the mission I am asking the plane to do, at the gross-weight I am at, my design calculations are telling me I need roughly 230 HP to do the job.... I don't know about you, but I certainly don't have unlimited resources. Everywhere I have looked the price for a 540 is much higher than what you are quoting. I believe what you are saying, but that's not my experience.

 

The approach of being price concious is not ameteur. You think Boeing just sits up there and says get me an engine that has the thrust I need even though it costs $3Mn more than I have the budget for? No. They trade those costs just as they do Aerodynamic parameters... I have been doing the research and calculations for months now, and I believe my numbers based on my assumptions are solid. For the performance I want, 230 HP will do it. If my mission changes (This is called a "Trade Study") I believe I can alter my fuel weight requirements so that it will get me to the HP requirements I desire for cost reasons. Given your input though about cost for a 540, maybe I do not need to worry so much about it, and therefore becomes a less powerful player in the trade-off studies. Where do I go to see prices like the ones you're talking about? Wherever I've gone on the net, IO-540's start at ~40K new. Point me to a site or some hard resource that tells me different. I've met Chris, and he's a great guy, and his plane is really sweet! He's also probably more connected than I am and found a great deal. Anyway, I am babbling about my engine selection on an instrument panel discussion. Please, let's turn this back to my Cockpit design and layout. I will be sure to post my preliminary sizing conclusions another time.

 

-Chris

Chris Zupp

~Aircraft Designer~

Preliminary Design Sequence I: Project Endeavour

Aeronautical/Mechanical Engineer

Private Pilot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check out www.Mistral-Engines.com , G-300

300 HP @ $30K

 

They are currently in the process of certification

 

More HP than a 540 at less weight

I'm certainly going to look at Mistral at Oshkosh (I think they're going anyway) along with the other engine manufacturers. I am definitely leaning more towards the widely accepted Lycosaurs, but I am open to the rotarys. I DO NOT want to do a conversion from a Mazda, but from what I saw of Mistral it looked good. We'll see I guess . Thanks for the advice, any more on the cockpit layout though?

 

-Chris

Chris Zupp

~Aircraft Designer~

Preliminary Design Sequence I: Project Endeavour

Aeronautical/Mechanical Engineer

Private Pilot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check out www.Mistral-Engines.com , G-300

300 HP @ $30K

 

They are currently in the process of certification

 

More HP than a 540 at less weight

From Mistral's homepage:

 

Temporary slowdown of operations at MISTRAL Engines

Press Release, 17 July 2009

 

Impacted by the current economic situation MISTRAL Engines has no other option than to temporarily slowdown its activities and to reduce its workforce. The certification process of its 300 hp lead engine, however, continues, and the company expects to resume full blown activities within six to nine months.

Earlier this year MISTRAL Engines launched a new round of capital increase in order to bring MISTRAL from a startup to a fully industrialized global company *. Although key potential investors have clearly demonstrated their interest to participate in this financing round, convinced about the potential of MISTRAL Engines’ products and growth, the process is clearly impacted by the economic crisis. Investors are thus expected to join Mistral Engines’ capital, but at a slower pace than initially anticipated.

 

http://www.mistral-engines.com/content/view/full/184/item/763/offset/0

 

Doesn't sound very promising, unfortunately.

 

About pricing, I asked them in april and got these prices:

 

Our list prices, terms and conditions are as follows:

 

(1) For the experimental version of the G200: US$ 48’000 (VAT excluded). (2) For the experimental version of the G300 : US$ 69’000 (VAT excluded).

Erlend Moen
Norway
Cozy MK IV #1556 - Chapter 16
http://cozy.ljosnes.no

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Mistral's homepage:

 

Doesn't sound very promising, unfortunately.

 

About pricing, I asked them in april and got these prices:

 

Our list prices, terms and conditions are as follows:

G300 : US$ 69’000 (VAT excluded).[/color][/color]

Hi ErlendM,

I got a similar pricing answer from them directly as well. TMann, do you remember where you got your 30K figure? Thanks! Any comments on the cockpit layout?

 

-Chris

Chris Zupp

~Aircraft Designer~

Preliminary Design Sequence I: Project Endeavour

Aeronautical/Mechanical Engineer

Private Pilot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TMann, do you remember where you got your 30K figure?

 

I talked with them in 2007. Seems they only have to make half as many sales now to generate the same revenue.

T Mann - Loooong-EZ/20B Infinity R/G Chpts 18

Velocity/RG N951TM

Mann's Airplane Factory

We add rocket's to everything!

4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 10, 14, 19, 20 Done

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TMann,

Yeah, unfortunately it seems that way. I still haven't seen anyone point me to a website or business number I can call, request an IO-540 for 26-30K.... Anyways.... This post is meant to be about my cockpit layout and design. I am glad to get feedback on engines, since this is another area of research I am still trying to understand (Ask me about jet engines and I can answer most questions, but pistons are another story ;) ). If you have remarks about engines please PM me or start a new thread and point me to it in the enigne section. Thank you very much for the feedback so far, keep it coming!

 

-Chris

Chris Zupp

~Aircraft Designer~

Preliminary Design Sequence I: Project Endeavour

Aeronautical/Mechanical Engineer

Private Pilot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this is cockpit related.. One of the things I am grappling with is how to connect the two control sticks... They are not on the same level, so I have come up with a few alternatives I can think of. I welcome any other thoughts on this too!

 

1. Universal joint. This would use a system like the drive shafts on trucks. I believe I can get the angle right so that the movement is free, but I would have to worry about two joints and the pins that connect them.

 

2. Just angle 1 solid tube. This would be supported by 3-4 bearings along its axis and would allow the sticks to roll together. I think this would probably be a lighter solution, and the pull-up push down motion would just have an obtuse angle with the axis. I don't forsee any trouble with this, but I haven't tested it in the CAD system or in my Mock up.

 

3. Chain and Sprocket. I think this would be fairly easy to execute. Just put the sprockets on the middle bulk-head attaching the tubes with a chain. This would give me 2 Axes parallel to the centerline of the plane. However, I see this as the option with the most weight and moving parts. Also, how do you control the pull and push motions. The chain could also bind up under high G loading with deflection of the structure.

 

 

Any thoughts to my control stick ramblings? Thanks!

 

-Chris

Chris Zupp

~Aircraft Designer~

Preliminary Design Sequence I: Project Endeavour

Aeronautical/Mechanical Engineer

Private Pilot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this is cockpit related.. One of the things I am grappling with is how to connect the two control sticks... They are not on the same level, so I have come up with a few alternatives I can think of. I welcome any other thoughts on this too!

 

1. Universal joint. This would use a system like the drive shafts on trucks. I believe I can get the angle right so that the movement is free, but I would have to worry about two joints and the pins that connect them.

 

2. Just angle 1 solid tube. This would be supported by 3-4 bearings along its axis and would allow the sticks to roll together. I think this would probably be a lighter solution, and the pull-up push down motion would just have an obtuse angle with the axis. I don't forsee any trouble with this, but I haven't tested it in the CAD system or in my Mock up.

 

3. Chain and Sprocket. I think this would be fairly easy to execute. Just put the sprockets on the middle bulk-head attaching the tubes with a chain. This would give me 2 Axes parallel to the centerline of the plane. However, I see this as the option with the most weight and moving parts. Also, how do you control the pull and push motions. The chain could also bind up under high G loading with deflection of the structure.

 

 

Any thoughts to my control stick ramblings? Thanks!

 

-Chris

 

Not really a big prob. The fact that the two tubes are not at the same waterline is immaterial. There are only two main factors (I assume that you are talking about the aileron torque tubes, although the elevator push/pull tubes are similar--only pushing and pulling.

 

In the typical installation, the tubes are brought through the firewall and then connected together with one a bellcrank which also connects to the motion changer and then to the aileron bellcrank.

 

All that is necessary is to remember that the length of all bellcranks that connect the two sides, (and if the geometry on one side is changed at the firewall- the cranks to the motion changer on that side) be the same length and to put a push-pull tube between theses. The orientation of the bellcranks on the tubes should be such that when the control is in nutral position, these cranks (one on each tube) must be parallel to each other and the push/pull tube between the two tubes be routed parallel to a line between the two tubes(perpendicular to the torque tubes). The length of these bell cranks is immaterial as long as they are identical.

 

What you want is, at nutral aileron position, a rectangle made up by the line between the two torque tubes, the interconnecting push pull tube and the two bell cranks, rather than a rhomboid. (it will become a rhomboid as the controls are moved from nutral.)

 

The equal length and orientation is critical to prevent unequal movement or the two control surfaces.

 

Finding a location where you can put the bellcranks is another situation, however, but not insurmountable.

 

 

Good luck

I Canardly contain myself!

Rich :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information