Re: LPP

From: calgoddard <calgoddard_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 21:57:14 -0000

Mark:

Thanks for the explanation on the wing post height.

I am going with tip plates on the main wing of my LPP under construction. Tip plates are allowed under the AMA LPP rules (as long as you don't exceed max span and chord), and with this kind of main wing, I have usually had shorter wing posts. We'll see how it works out. If nothting else, my LPP will look different than all the others.




--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "Mark F1diddler" <f1diddler@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "calgoddard" <calgoddard@> wrote:
> >
> > Why do the wing posts need to be 3" tall? This appears to be the height in most of the plans like the Cezar Banks LPP plan. Wouldn't 2" be sufficient, and perhaps save a little weight? Or is there some advantage to having the wing in the wash near the tip of the prop?
> >
>
> The typical pattern with many trends in indoor design goes something like this: a theoretician indoorist will propose that a certain configuration has a certain advantage. He will build it, and do well with configuration. Others then copy or alter their models and discover that at least "it doesn't hurt." So then it's accepted as a viable, good configuration. Tall posts may be one of those "self compensating" advantages, where yes, the wing finds "cleaner" air up there, but other things also happen, such as perhaps requiring more downthrust (an energy cost to some.) I'm sure you notice that many good ezbs don't have tall posts. So maybe tall posts are good when you have weight to burn, but if and when you need the weight back, trim down. Who's knows! Not me.
> Mark F1diddler
>
Received on Thu May 26 2011 - 14:57:22 CEST