Jump to content

Flaps to aid climbing - truth or fiction


Ed Cesnalis

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 230
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'm not sure how complex it is, maybe it's an elegant solution?

 

The benefit seems meaningful, a CT will handle at very slow speeds allowing a number of owners to operate on very short fields.

 

PS  I built a plane with flaperons once and I still don't understand how it works.  :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what you might call "damning evidence"!

 

Sure confirms it! Pretty cool engineering. POH diagram:

 

27966102630_4fd4318480_z.jpg

 

I think I see the bellcrank linkage between the two at the bottom.

 

Actually the mixing is done at the top in the diagram, where the bar goes across.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how complex it is, maybe it's an elegant solution?

 

 

I'll grant elegant. It pleases me.

 

But more food for thought:

 

Where does adverse yaw come from? It comes from the downward deflected aileron causing more drag on the wing you're trying to lift.

 

Now, imagine the drag incurred when both ailerons move down together. I think that's just a bit more fodder for both climb rate and ceiling being adversely affected by flap - and now flaperon - deflection.

 

But I await further tests. I think a key will be making sure you are actually at the best rate of climb speed for each configura given your conditions and loading on the day of the test. Since no Vy is published for flaps, you'll have to be the test pilot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again the OLD SWs are different than the newer planes.   The CTLS and CTLSi do not work like CTs old SW.  The flaps do not move the ailerons.  Also, there is no -12, nor a 40 degree flap setting on the CTLS or the CTLSi.  So we are talking about two different planes in essence. 

 

The argument is moot because the confusion emanates from disparity between the old planes and the new ones.  Same goes for the old 912ULS engine and the new fuel injected 912iS engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a matter of fact, the description and image of the linked ailerons and flaps were from a CTLS POH.

 

Someone will have to verify if the same is true on the CTLSi.

 

If so, it seems like it would be hard to miss the effect on repeated preflights if done with flaps down. I think I would notice "drooping" ailerons with flaps down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again the OLD SWs are different than the newer planes.   The CTLS and CTLSi do not work like CTs old SW.  The flaps do not move the ailerons.  Also, there is no -12, nor a 40 degree flap setting on the CTLS or the CTLSi.  So we are talking about two different planes in essence. 

 

The argument is moot because the confusion emanates from disparity between the old planes and the new ones.  Same goes for the old 912ULS engine and the new fuel injected 912iS engine.

 

Wow, you are so wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a matter of fact, the description and image of the linked ailerons and flaps were from a CTLS POH.

 

Someone will have to verify if the same is true on the CTLSi.

 

If so, it seems like it would be hard to miss the effect on repeated preflights if done with flaps down. I think I would notice "drooping" ailerons with flaps down.

 

My CTLS has them, as well as the CTLSi that I maintain and have flown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again the OLD SWs are different than the newer planes.   The CTLS and CTLSi do not work like CTs old SW.  The flaps do not move the ailerons.  Also, there is no -12, nor a 40 degree flap setting on the CTLS or the CTLSi.  So we are talking about two different planes in essence. 

 

The argument is moot because the confusion emanates from disparity between the old planes and the new ones.  Same goes for the old 912ULS engine and the new fuel injected 912iS engine.

 

It is a wonder that you didn't call the dealer complaining your CT was broke, because the ailerons moved with the flaps. What is more concerning is that you were not observant enough to notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My CTLS has them, as well as the CTLSi that I maintain and have flown.

 

We have owned the CTLSi for 2.5 years.  The flaps and ailerons are not connected and work independently.  My wife flys the plane regularly she says the same thing.  It seems someone either A. doesn't know how the plane works  or B. isn't telling the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have owned the CTLSi for 2.5 years.  The flaps and ailerons are not connected and work independently.  My wife flys the plane regularly she says the same thing.  It seems someone either A. doesn't know how the plane works  or B. isn't telling the truth.

 

They do in fact work independently, when you move the stick left or right only the flaperons move, the flaps do not.  However when you move the flaps via the electric motor both the flaps and the flaperons extend/droop.

 

Its obvious that neither you or your wife have gone over this feature in your training, that doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

You or your wife can prove us wrong the next time you go flying.  Exercise the flaps as you pre-flight and observe, or video for proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have owned the CTLSi for 2.5 years.  The flaps and ailerons are not connected and work independently.  My wife flys the plane regularly she says the same thing.  It seems someone either A. doesn't know how the plane works  or B. isn't telling the truth.

 

You seem to be standing alone on this. Maybe you should go visit your old airplane and check it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The flaps and ailerons are not connected and work independently.

Status: False.

 

Ref: the CTLS POH, which explicitly describes a "mixer" which interconnects the flaps and ailerons.

 

If you were not instructed on this by your CFI, that's unfortunate. If you never read your POH, that goes beyond unfortunate. If you never noticed it yourself, I'm not really sure what that means.

 

Anyway, I just ran this by a disinterested third party, and they again opined that you must be doing this on purpose.

 

Kinda like when you admitted messing with the guys on COPA.

 

I guess we'll just keep correcting your false assertions so that no one is misled, but it sure is getting tiresome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been envolved with Flight Design for 9 years now. Here is a little something I picked up along the way. Early on there was quite a number of landing accidents in the CT's. It was observed by many of the experienced CT pilots that the problem was the use of full flaps, and specifically the flaperons. Flight Design was petitioned to remove the flaperon function from the control system, but they declined. They felt it was necessary for short field operations.

 

The reason for the negative flaps is because of the shape of the airfoil. It has a little camber and droop at the trailing edge. There is a speed restriction of 100kts with the flaps in the 0° position, because of the loading at the trailing edge. By going to the negative flap position it reduces the force on the trailing edge of the wing. My guess is the fact that the ailerons go down with flaps is tied to the need to have them go to the negative position to reduce the load on the trailing edge. Kind of like an unneeded consequence of reducing drag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got my vote.

 

"The reason for the negative flaps is because of the shape of the airfoil. It has a little camber and droop at the trailing edge. There is a speed restriction of 100kts with the flaps in the 0° position, because of the loading at the trailing edge. By going to the negative flap position it reduces the force on the trailing edge of the wing. My guess is the fact that the ailerons go down with flaps is tied to the need to have them go to the negative position to reduce the load on the trailing edge. Kind of like an unneeded consequence of reducing drag."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kinda like when you admitted messing with the guys on COPA.

 

I guess we'll just keep correcting your false assertions so that no one is misled, but it sure is getting tiresome.

 

You don't own or fly the Flight Design nor the Cirrus, Eddie.   I don't comment on aircraft I don't own or fly.  

 

Flight Design knows about you Eddie and Cirrus knows about you and the other goofs on COPA that sit on that board and bully real owners.  So don't presume you and other non owners like you who kibitz on these boards are respected....you and the others are not.

 

The plane closes escrow on July 29th....so until then I am technically still an owner, btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a speed restriction of 100kts with the flaps in the 0° position, because of the loading at the trailing edge.

That is so weird. I just looked in the CLTS POH, and it's there, albeit 105 kts instead of 100 kts.

 

What is really weird is listing a Vfe for a no-flap configuration. I've never encountered that before. Seems almost oxymoronic!

 

"Maximum Flap Extended Speed with no flaps is..." ?!?!

 

Learn something every day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't own or fly the Flight Design nor the Cirrus, Eddie.   I don't comment on aircraft I don't own or fly.  

 

Flight Design knows about you Eddie and Cirrus knows about you and the other goofs on COPA that sit on that board and bully real owners.  So don't presume you and other non owners like you who kibitz on these boards are respected....you and the others are not.

 

The plane closes escrow on July 29th....so until then I am technically still an owner, btw.

 

Good, go out and video the ailerons not moving with the flaps like CT did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is so weird. I just looked in the CLTS POH, and it's there, albeit 105 kts instead of 100 kts.

What is really weird is listing a Vfe for a no-flap configuration. I've never encountered that before. Seems almost oxymoronic!

"Maximum Flap Extended Speed with no flaps is..." ?!?!

Learn something every day!

Just think of -6 as the "no flaps" position. In my POH the limit is 100kt for the CTSW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...