X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 02:01:32 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-da04.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.146] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c3) with ESMTP id 4003398 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:19:34 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.146; envelope-from=RWolf99@aol.com Received: from imo-da01.mx.aol.com (imo-da01.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.199]) by imr-da04.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id nB55Iojc010522 for ; Sat, 5 Dec 2009 00:18:50 -0500 Received: from RWolf99@aol.com by imo-da01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.5.) id q.c1b.6334b87c (37546) for ; Sat, 5 Dec 2009 00:18:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtprly-mc03.mx.aol.com (smtprly-mc03.mx.aol.com [64.12.95.99]) by cia-mb02.mx.aol.com (v126.13) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMB027-d3d94b19ed3028a; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:18:45 -0500 Received: from webmail-d039 (webmail-d039.sim.aol.com [205.188.181.86]) by smtprly-mc03.mx.aol.com (v126.13) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYMC033-d3d94b19ed3028a; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:18:40 -0500 X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Flutter X-Original-Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:18:40 -0500 X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-AOL-IP: 69.244.32.229 X-MB-Message-Type: User MIME-Version: 1.0 From: rwolf99@aol.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CC43818A8856C6_58C8_12845_webmail-d039.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 29644-STANDARD Received: from 69.244.32.229 by webmail-d039.sysops.aol.com (205.188.181.86) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:18:40 -0500 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CC43818A839402-58C8-923A@webmail-d039.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: RWolf99@aol.com ----------MB_8CC43818A8856C6_58C8_12845_webmail-d039.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dan and Don are both right -- flutter may be a mild buzz (which will incre= ase with airspeed) or it may be an explosive event. The big boys (by this= I mean the aircraft companies with the resoures to do this) approach flut= ter clearance in a build-up fashion as follows. Sometimes they do part of= this and somtimes they do all of this. An analytical model is generated which includes the flexibility of the str= ucture *and* the aerodynamic characteristics. The model is "flown" at var= ious virtual airspeeds to determine what the aeroelastic modes are. "Aero= elastic" is a big word that we use to make people think we are smarter tha= n we really are. It includes "aero" -- the aerodynamic effects which gene= rate the forces on the airframe, and "elastic" -- the fact that the struct= ure deforms under load, and therefore the aerodynamic forces change. By "modes" we mean that there are several things on the airplane that will= deform under load, and when there is an interaction between that deflecti= on and the changing aerodynamic loads that results in it shaking back and= forth (oscillating), well, that's an "aeroelastic mode". The obvious one= is the wing flexing up and down. But there are other modes, too, such as= the vertical fin flexing back and forth, or the tailcone twisting and the= horizontal stabilizer driving that oscillation. The latter is the mode= that Martin Hollmann claims for the large-tail Lancair 320/360, and which= Lancair claims is not present. There is a writeup of this somewhere on= Marv's web site. Okay, once you analytically calculate modes, you do "ground vibration test= s" to explore the modes that are significant. You shake the airplane with= accelerometers mounted in strategic places. (This is done on the ground)= This confirms the modes and their frequencies. As I recall, here is whe= re Hollmann and Lancair disagree. Both have done these tests and they got= different results. This testing is beyond the capability of virtually al= l homebuilders, and costs something like $25,000 to contract out. Probably= more. As an aside, I have no explanation for the different results, but the test= s were done on different airplanes so maybe that's a factor. Hollmann als= o claims that the critical speed for that mode is around 150 knots. If it= were really a problem, the ground would be littered with Lancair parts.= Hollmann suggests a reinforcement. Most people have not done that, but= I wonder if that obviously highly damped mode (if it exists at all) might= be related to the fatigue cracks at the ventral fin that some high time= 320/360's have experienced. (Myself, I'm not losing any sleep over this= but it is curious. I have also done a different version of Martin's reinf= orcement which he siad "will probably work but I can't say for sure until= you pay me to analyze it". Personally, I have no concerns about flying= in a 320/360 which does not include Martin's reinforcement)=20 Then you go fly. Those modes are always there, but they are heavily dampe= d (and therefore not a flight safety issue) until you go fast enough. (Th= e venetian blind is stable until the wind gets too high, then it flutters.= ) But you measure those frequencies and, using electronic instrumentation= and computers, you calculate the damping. You fly at one speed, excite= the structure with either an electric shaker or else just rapping the sti= ck or rudder, and you calculate the damping. Then, only when you have the= damping number and it's greater than 2%, you increase the speed 5 knots= and do it again. When the damping drops to 2%, you stop. That testing= is aso beyond the capability of virtually all homebuilders. Free play can cause the flutter speed to drop dramatically. On the positi= ve side, this type of flutter is normally the non-explosive kind. If your= airplane is buzzing, slow down. If it diminishes as you slow down, see= what's looser than it used to be. It could be somethiing apparently inno= cuous, like hinge wear. It could also be something more. Find out and fi= x it before you fly again. Don't assume that it won't suddenly get worse= -- airlanes don't usually fix themselves. You might also consider Randy= Stuart's cautious approach of flying solo if you have to ferry it home (T= his is not a snide comment -- I applaud him for that). Hope this helps, or is at least educational.=20 - Rob Wolf ----------MB_8CC43818A8856C6_58C8_12845_webmail-d039.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Dan and Don are both right -- flutter may be a mild buzz (which will= increase with airspeed) or it may be an explosive event.  The big bo= ys (by this I mean the aircraft companies with the resoures to do this) ap= proach flutter clearance in a build-up fashion as follows.  Sometimes= they do part of this and somtimes they do all of this.
 
An analytical model is generated which includes the flexibility of th= e structure *and* the aerodynamic characteristics.  The model is "flo= wn" at various virtual airspeeds to determine what the aeroelastic modes= are.  "Aeroelastic" is a big word that we use to make people think= we are smarter than we really are.  It includes "aero" -- the aerody= namic effects which generate the forces on the airframe, and "elastic" --= the fact that the structure deforms under load, and therefore the aerodyn= amic forces change.
 
By "modes" we mean that there are several things on the airplane that= will deform under load, and when there is an interaction between that def= lection and the changing aerodynamic loads that results in it shaking back= and forth (oscillating), well, that's an "aeroelastic mode".  The ob= vious one is the wing flexing up and down.  But there are other modes= , too, such as the vertical fin flexing back and forth, or the tailcone tw= isting and the horizontal stabilizer driving that oscillation.  The= latter is the mode that Martin Hollmann claims for the large-tail Lancair= 320/360, and which Lancair claims is not present.  There is a writeu= p of this somewhere on Marv's web site.
 
Okay, once you analytically calculate modes, you do "ground vibration= tests" to explore the modes that are significant.  You shake the air= plane with accelerometers mounted in strategic places.  (This is done= on the ground)  This confirms the modes and their frequencies. = As I recall, here is where Hollmann and Lancair disagree.  Both have= done these tests and they got different results.  This testing is be= yond the capability of virtually all homebuilders, and costs something lik= e $25,000 to contract out. Probably more.
 
As an aside, I have no explanation for the different results, but the= tests were done on different airplanes so maybe that's a factor.  Ho= llmann also claims that the critical speed for that mode is around 150 kno= ts.  If it were really a problem, the ground would be littered with= Lancair parts.  Hollmann suggests a reinforcement. Most people= have not done that, but I wonder if that obviously highly damped mode (if= it exists at all) might be related to the fatigue cracks at the vent= ral fin that some high time 320/360's have experienced.  (Myself, I'm= not losing any sleep over this but it is curious. I have also done a diff= erent version of Martin's reinforcement which he siad "will probably work= but I can't say for sure until you pay me to analyze it".  Personall= y, I have no concerns about flying in a 320/360 which does not include Mar= tin's reinforcement)
 
Then you go fly.  Those modes are always there, but they are hea= vily damped (and therefore not a flight safety issue) until you go fast en= ough.  (The venetian blind is stable until the wind gets too high, th= en it flutters.)  But you measure those frequencies and, using electr= onic instrumentation and computers, you calculate the damping.  You= fly at one speed, excite the structure with either an electric shaker or= else just rapping the stick or rudder, and you calculate the damping.&nbs= p; Then, only when you have the damping number and it's greater than 2%,&n= bsp;you increase the speed 5 knots and do it again.  When the damping= drops to 2%, you stop.  That testing is aso beyond the capability of= virtually all homebuilders.
 
Free play can cause the flutter speed to drop dramatically.  On= the positive side, this type of flutter is normally the non-explosive kin= d.  If your airplane is buzzing, slow down.  If it diminishes as= you slow down, see what's looser than it used to be.  It could be so= methiing apparently innocuous, like hinge wear.  It could also be som= ething more.  Find out and fix it before you fly again.  Don't= assume that it won't suddenly get worse -- airlanes don't usually fix the= mselves.  You might also consider Randy Stuart's cautious approach of= flying solo if you have to ferry it home (This is not a snide comment --= I applaud him for that).
 
Hope this helps, or is at least educational. 
 
- Rob Wolf
----------MB_8CC43818A8856C6_58C8_12845_webmail-d039.sysops.aol.com--