• Become a Premium Member today!

    Welcome aboard HomebuiltAirplanes.com, your destination for connecting with a thriving community of more than 10,000 active members, all passionate about home-built aviation.

    For a nominal fee of $99.99/year or $12.99/month, you can immerse yourself in this dynamic community and unparalleled treasure-trove of aviation knowledge.

    Why become a Premium Member?

    • Dive into our comprehensive repository of knowledge, exchange technical insights, arrange get-togethers, and trade aircrafts/parts with like-minded enthusiasts.
    • Unearth a wide-ranging collection of general and kit plane aviation subjects, enriched with engaging imagery, in-depth technical manuals, and rare archives.

    Become a Premium Member today and experience HomebuiltAirplanes.com to the fullest!

    Upgrade Now

Sonerai II L larger rudder

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Yes, understood. I'm curious why Paz uses CG to 1/4 tail chord to define the tail arm, whereas others define it as 1/4 wing chord to 1/4 tail chord.
A guess: Pazmany is just being a bit more conservative (by basing calcs on the shortest allowable tail arm)? The CG window is typically about 25% MAC to 40% MAC. If the CG is allowed to be at 40% MAC, the plane will pivot there and it is the appropriate location for defining one end of the tail arm.
My question would be the complement of yours: Why do others calculate tail arm measured from 25% MAC?
 
Last edited:
This is a question about why different sources use different definitions of tail length.
If you want to analyze from first principals, you're going to want to use CG as the basis, since otherwise the comparison is invalid. If you want to compile a database of best practices to build an empirical model from, you're going to want to use quarter chord, since you can extract that from only a three view.
 
The first Sonerai was designed for racing, so everything except horsepower was minimized, including the rudder. Many builders have added three or four inches the the rudder height, and many different shapes have been used. I added three inches of height to my rudder on my Sonerai IIL, and copied the profile of the P-40 just because I like it. It hasn't flown yet, so I can't comment on performance.
 

Attachments

  • DSCF9641.JPG
    DSCF9641.JPG
    868.2 KB
Because the aircraft yaws / pitches / rolls about the CG.


BJC
Yes. Always better to have more stability than not enough. But negatives in both. Have a large amount of yaw stability will reduce your max crosswind component. Having not enough then the tail may want to wag in a little turbulence and even less stability, approaching neutral the nose of the airplane will not return to the line of flight, where you have to fly the rudder at all times . I have flown 2 homebuilt kit airplanes where if you gave it rudder in level flight and did not give it opposite rudder to bring the nose of the airplane back to the line of flight it stayed to the side . Both kitplane companies added more tail area after the first few they sold and made good flying airplanes.
The Cessna 411 was bad for waging it tail except in smooth air and had a high VMC on single engine. Even the old C-310's with the tuna wing tip fuel tanks with no baffles would wag when it's fuel in the tanks was at about 50 %.
 
Vertical tail coefficient .020 is small-- . 045 is large. I set the JMR at .038. I like it .
Piper J-3 Cub is .022
Luscomb is .026
Navion is ,040

Horizontal tail coefficient-- .30 is small, .70 is large. I set the JMR at .508. Pitch stability is very good.
Piper Cub is .34
Luscombe is .44
Navion is .69 ( 4 seat )

Look at this picture and see how as the Horizontal tail coefficient go's down it limits of the CG envelope. The reason the Navion and most 4 seat airplanes has a high horizontal tail coefficient. Chart is for my JMR.
 

Attachments

  • 20180127_072357.JPG
    20180127_072357.JPG
    2.1 MB
Last edited:
Back
Top