Get the most out of your bipe by under- PART 1 standing its unique aerodynamics ‘Eter's noe: this isthe frst ina orpar series on biplanes by Corl Rsteenan ceronautcal engineer, model designer ‘and unvedeamed bplae uskie who has writen before on ch ‘pies as futer (see the March and April'93 issue) and servant device (September and Ostober'93 isuet. If ou ‘aye an interest bipes, ths 's required reading! In Certs ord: “Biplane are challenging bundle of oerodynemie ard urructaral choracterisics, both helpful and har ul by aay Aa el coches cae Ss y CARL RISTEEN prabareypa erosapecuryrepiamns A ‘heir rigue personales 'VERYONE LIKES BIPES. Nothing else can transport you as readily to an era when flying was high adventure, replete with sensory delights of castor scented wind and the music of singing bracing wires. Fire up your model bipe, advance the throttle as the litte bird eagerly takes wing, and suddenly, at some level of consciousness, you are buck in 1917, high over the trenches, Clerget rotary thing twin Vickers a the ready, keeping an eye peeled forthe Red Baron, (ven if some of your friends may regard your resemblance to Snoopy snd his Sopwith Cumel doghouse as a litle nearer the mark.) Tnoring 2 chorus of sniping at their aerodynamic shortcom- ings, the double-decker remained the dominant aircraft species for several decades. Qualities other than peak aerodynamic eff ciency kept them alive, even as first-line fighters, well nto the 1930S. Bipes could be built lighter, stronger, tighter taming and, many thought, safer than monoplanes, ‘Antique engines were about as reliable as dollar watches ‘nd not terribly powerful for their weight. Forced landings, fre- quently on terrain thet a suicidal buzzard would avoid, con- Yinced early aviators of the wisdom of tading a litle top speed fora lt of wing area, and light, sturdy construction. BIRDS TO BIPLANES—AND BACK? [At the dawn of heavier-than-ar flight, flying-machine mongers stole shamelessly from the only competition arcund—master aviators who had teen in business for & long time. These feath- ‘red fliers used thin, under-cambered wing sections. Clearly, birds had to be on to something. The purloined sirfoils cffciently lifted the slow-chugging, primeval aircraft those fst few wonderful feet, and erthusiasm fr light soared Marvels of design, bird wings incorporace wicks that, after ‘more than a centary, continue to elude airplane designers. although they are slowly closing the gap. One very basic fea- ture, wing warping for roll control, was adopted by the Wright brothers, and it played a starting role in their success. Aileronserude devices that no bird would be caught deat with—proved easier for airplanes 1o live with. Ninety years Inter, aviation is close to coming full circle, with wing warping receiving intense scrutiny for future fighters. Variable eam, compound slots, boundary layer control, variable wing swee? and lf-enhancing, unstable CG aft have aeady been appropri- ated from those clever bin Successful aviation pioneers shrewdly reduced the wing t0 iS bare-bones essentials, adopting a more or less rigid structure. “The thin wings did pose a problem, Stuffing enough structural Cree beef into their meager internal confines to make them sell- biaaadsupporting Would have imposed a crushing weight Penalty, so early designers seized on a simple solu ‘Hon—wire bracing. whichis tremendously strong for its weight. For wire bracing, the biplane layout was a natural. The upper ‘and lower wings formed the horizontal members of a deep snd, thus, very strong. light and rigid bridge-like girder. Some bold experimenters refused to run with the pack, and ‘doggedly pursued the scent of higher efficiency that led down the ‘monoplane trail, Moroplanes had long been suspected to be better ‘aerodynamically, but they were trickier to brace with wire, and some paid dearly for their temerity. ‘As Soon a8 aviators had cleared the roughest past of the debis- strewn path w flight, they licked their wounds and set out on a ‘quest for higher speed. As speeds rose, fixed under-cember was found to cause a lotof crag, and was gradually reduced, but airfoils, remained thin, (Having variable camber, birds hud no need for thick airfoils.) ‘Then, some German experimenters hit on an spoch-making discovery: much thicker airfoils, lurknown to birds, seemed to work well, Although Sinner mceear Sri fom seh igh dng sec mr tere act Sots fan te tacts te of hee itd sone eu ld pe pn roan am br ch ep tc ng coher Mig ogee wit oe ‘ihe Cat Rien ‘ieatnd Pa msi S4inshapan, 129000, oral Kise dan. Tpard wing vl be ickness of a wing could double is streagth and quedruple is ffness, for litte increase in weight First used by Junkers in 1910 and promoted by Fokker during ‘WW I the thick-wing idea slowly took hold, opening the deor 10 -a deal that was hard to the more efficient, unbraced monopline WHY BIPLANE WINGS ARE LESS EFFICIENT | Any aigpiane wing tha is developing lit has lower-pressure aie tore fa ht peste dre ea a soe he fit de pee hell ter ewe | twine wae opens fae ee a ‘stat dpe maxes te ie own ba he eee a i HHA B i teh FTsuffers more, because most of the lift is produced by he upper sur- face of « wing. This is a by-product ofeach wing being forced to fy in the other's downdraft, called downwash, in addition wo its own downwash. Any wing must produce downvash to provide lif. The effect is similar to atempting to walk up a descending escalstor. [Energy that mast be expended simply 10 stay atthe same height rears its ualy head as drag Each wing, flying in its pariner’s downwash, needs a higher angle of stack than it would when fiying solo. Drag increases coosider- ably, particularly at higher it coefficients, when the éownwash hill is steeper. ‘Wea the two wings are working a low lift coefficients, such as at top speed, straight and level, downvash is minimal and the wings ‘et along quite well, Drag is ony a litle higher (excluding the drag Of those pesky wires) than that of a monoplane wing of the same a requiring close to mai sum Tift, and the wing versus-wing batle beats vp. Drag may exceed 150 percent of that of a monoplane wing, for only 90 percent of the if ‘The high-drag disease also afflicts monoplane wings of rather low Figure 1. Front view of biplane and ‘monoplane showing te are of the ait ‘sean assured io be dlc by he wing In preucing lit (asad in calling mono- ane equivalent of plane aspect ati), ‘early designers to cor- reetly conclude that biplane mutual wing interference had the same effect as reducing aspoct ratio. Aspect ratio (the ratio of the length, ‘or span, of a wing tits width, or chord) is ying the load with mini- mam drag. In wings of low aspect ratio, more of the high- pressure air short-cireuits around the ‘wingtips and joins the low-pressure air above, The short-citcuiting ‘reduces lift and wastes. lt of enerty in genecaiing wingtip vortices —litle tornadoes that trail a long distance behind the wings. The result is Tift- induced érag, shortened to “induced drag.” These energetic litle whitl- ‘winds often reves! their presence while we are performing consecutive oops. when the model suddenly spasms into a bank on overtaking & ‘Wings exer an influence on te air stream, and vice vers, that extends 10 ‘considerable distance —n theary, al the way to infinity (or the tim its ofthe atmosphere). Wings need plenty of elbow room to do their job a top efficiency, However, when powered fight was in ts “teen ‘years theery people determined that only 2 negligible portion of a ‘wing's vertical field of influence extends ouside a circle centered at ‘mid-span and touching each tip (see Figure 1). The shaded area ‘bounded by the circle shown in the illustration is called “sweep arcs" Introduce second wing spaced vertically close enough above ‘the first to make their teritoral Boundaries overap, and performance suffers. The iceease in induced drag was found 10 be a function of sweep area lost to over lap. This loss is eaused by mutual interference when two wings are spaced vertically closer than one wingspan to ‘each other, a8 shown in the head-on view of a biplane in Figure Biplane mutual-wing lnterference has the same effect as lowering the aspect ratio of « mono- plane wing. A biplane wing with a fairly 1e- speciable aspect ratio of ‘6 may perform similarly to a monoplane wing with an aspect ratiocof less than 4. Induced drag increases in inverse proportion 10 aspect rio. Halving the aspect ratio doubles induced drag. At maximum it, the induced drag generated by 2 rather low-aspect-ratio wing, ray exceed 9 percent of the dea ofthe entre airplane, This takes & Totof engine power to overcome and greatly steepens the glide, ‘CHOOSING THE RIGHT GAP Inceahng the vera separation (gz) bewecn the wings rede drag and slightly increases lift. Unfortunately, a large gap dictates the ‘use of longcr and, thus, heavier and “drageier” cabane and interplane Sts to siport the wings. AS always here sn fe fnch. AE fap ima also hurt andlng. The al path toward increasing fie rang the upper win, may ao raise the enter of era 0° far sbove the exer of gravity and the trast fine are thus degre ‘serobatic line-holding accuracy. Figure 2 shows the effect on lift 202 dag of varying the gaprorchord rato for a biplane with an ae tt of 6 Most designers seth on beeen fant 15 Taerensing TTT meres cams Tapaeaeres arava eared oe ehee aeenes : ‘nce fee iin tk 7 ee gap-to-chord ratio of somewhe® ‘gap from 1 to 1.5 times the ehoréwill typically redvee Induced drag by about 4355 percent and increase Jif by 5 peveent, Going all the way to 2 highly sancommon ratio of 2 reduces drag by 2 further ‘$7 percent and increases {ift another 2.5 percent. ‘Reins diminish rapidly for a pap greater than about one chert, Bipes tend ts have higher parasite and induced dng than monoplancs, and that makes thee more power hungry. Bipes also present the epportuity to provide lot of lifting wine ares ‘within a compact eave lope, enhancing the lin. to-drag ratio and reduc- ing the need for brure power. Clipping the wings of a typical sport Dipe in an attempt 10 squeere cut # litle more speed isthe wrong way to go; it usually results in a nasty Tide beast that literally falls out of the sky when you cut the ower. Following a brief Ming vith stubbier wings in a ecobaic biplane design that suffered a lot of induced dee, {it the bullet and Wont to an ‘ncommonty high aspect Ito, at least in bipe Aadels, of about 8. with gap of about 1.2 times the chord (see the photo Of the 68-inch-span bipe), This gave me a 15 1.10 1.05 10 cumax cer} 0m coun. .02s| za Dora we iaye wwe zaeAED Gapchor Figure 2. Vain of bgtne wing it nc hag with gap-o-chor alo, or aspect too 6. a & Jw Regnolds numb. This chart assumes an spt ao of 6. Hyco 0 think in ters 4 gan/san ral, simply dvde te gaeihord urbe by 6. ‘Aspect Ratio Correction Factors {equal Aspect Ration) on At en | io a ee ‘noire facea fata radee igre 3. This cat proves te coeston tt (er Jngoced ca fo ing the equivalent mosoplane asec aol assumed hl hese ats 0 at) tapae wags eet sare, To tine aed 08 ere ‘ens 3 lower wig tha! 56 te scan ct upper wing. Te ie abled 0.8 rapresonts the cast whe ‘he foes wings. he Shanoff upper wing. 1.0 insets Bot wins ao equal san, (0 = fover ‘nln wing: bu pe blane wing). 8 10 oa 42 sawn Garesin Factors Ut caaeatrtn, oer iT ONE “ 4 “ ‘ “ ola | eee we Ca CCC Figara 4. Aspect-atio cormion actors (or induced dg) fo: iplanes win etl upper and love wing Chords. (0 = lee biplane wig; by = pet ile wing) Tis hari ead he Figae 3 bu Soc plare wings where reve spans of the upper and lower wings vary, and wing chords ae sane “get tac oot Figure §. Lit characte fr the sper an owe wings o! an un-staggered (orthogonal) biplane. ‘Steqge wll accentuate erence betwen to the upper and lower wings. Nol tha the lower wing conus to produ way asim Utlang ae the upper wing has stale. This ges the combination @ tl sa. 22 10-spu ratio of 0.14, and with wings of equal span ani are, the “8pectntio conection factor, as shown in Figure 3, was about (57, Tividing tye biplane aspect rato of 8 by the menoplane aspect ratio serrection factor of 1.57 gives an equiva’ monoplane aspect catia 151, whichis typical Of many fine performing aerobatic mono- Phnes. Overall performance was mach jmproved. Careful Wing Sovctual design minimized the weight penalty inherent in a higher ‘pect tio to about 3 perccotof wal weigh. later exgriment ‘oxkthe aspect ratio to 10, with til beter esl (se phot). e's ook ata biplane witha more comin aspect rato of 6. If we five ithe same gap and wing area asthe bipe jast examined the £p-0-span ratio becomes 0.162 ar, looking a Figure 3, the aspect- ratio conversion factor will be about 1.54. To get the equivalent ‘monoplane aspect ratio, divide 6 ty 154, which Yields bout 3.9. A ow effective aspect ratio of 3.9 (comparing it with the effective sepectratio af $1 of he biplane jst previously discussed) wl result Jn about 1.3 times a6 mach induced drag at he same lif coefficient and about § peroeat less maximum Wf ($139 = 431). The result will be a lot more loss of speed in tight maneuvers, slight increase jin migra ruming edu and ach pore brickslike hie. ‘LOW WING LOADING AND GLEAN DESIGN you nave a Piplane design with low effecivewpect ratio, do net deeper, Using lower wing loading anda cleaner design can, toBIPLANE SECRETS PART 1 considerable degree, offet the bad effects of low aspect rato, Unrstaggerod (orthogonal) — | With «lower wing loading, you don't need to work the wings ay, Dione wig rangement hhard to get tight tums. AS they say there’s more than One way tp Vey nd w06y | ina ca Redan it hy 1 prt we hoping wing ee inlet ze ot the same will reduce induced drag 10 0.90% (because the induced sean cord (compared wih drag varies a the square of the coefficient of lif), o about 81 pe oul 2% [Link]) font that of the heavier airplane atthe same tuning radh ‘Similay, reducing weight by 20 percent wil reduce induce erag toconly 64 perest of ts pe-diet magnitude. Reducing wing loading by increasing wing ares without reocing weight will also hep, although the model will slower eokcng pase dng Wipe model fy fer nd peat saneere win | gsc anew Meio eee Sag podncg high Mt coef, Cen, ow ving loop and vet lg lowe rag than] Wht and drag ar very important if you want an outstanding bipe eeniess thts onving sn esi. Center of it is sg Tt ‘arther forward, my ‘WING STAGGER—HELPFUL OR JUST PRETTY? “Stagg” means placing one ofthe wings, wally the oper, ahead of the other. Stagger oes litle aeradyamic benef, atleast in terms of it and drag. ls chit benefit are that increas the pile upvard i of vision and makes acest the cockpit ese by moving the upper wing out ofthe way. Negatively staggered wing A little sweepback and cating away of the center of the upper ort wing’ taling edge are elo frequent ie for he sre reso. A Soy shape stl anu lange cuttin the upper wing ot al the chord or mot has ey Stage arenes wry td werdynmmic fc it rest neeaics induced drag, even fa Sig lve dag Nushlos Geshe sigh owrdng Mes | ay decent el sectn pes anmanan iste suey] auricle pve wc hue ning ison nd mp adn oem tive when the lower ving leads the parade, such aon the mm eee reaietecoge | Becctert 17 [Link] stagger gives the upp: ving ' ‘top, without cabans, Center of ‘more of the lift and the lower wing more of the drag at higher lift iit er back cocci The tet effec jst very aight inproverca, ant Fou tas lite effec tow it cocfcens i oes delay the sal of te tower wing to higher ange of aac, giving the crsinaton a ght cle, more gradual sala god thing Tals Ive ein spins, prety ofthe fat vary. The eff of egave sagt Cra of cor, cin he ene unequal peed ower wing cords the mean cho By siving the upper wing mee ofthe it poste stpger as moves he ese ef teat fom he normal 22 pecen fer ataggere bplns) mean chord peton © <= bout 17 to 18 percent of the mean chord in the case of 50 percent stagger. This requires tha te cme of gy bomnoved send by ssouply equal ditnee Posie stagger educa the anple of ack for rot jut a ite, and it may reqie Juss veh of pose sbi inidoce, sy degen, compensate. in imwened gh ove stagger becomes negative. Most of my ov pe desis 8 ——— 45 0 90 perce pose sugges andng differen, wpight ver neq! horde eediowervings | soteraively minor Invredsuprall entry seen ali cane, bu he oto k (Uaclyvinerote ci onsnote nver | Sigherandreqaies quicker reexes, wi : lel ete heal DECALAGE—WORTHWHILE OR A RIGGING NUISANCE? Mg Decaage ithe diference between bie's two wings angles of incidence—he ang} ft whith te wings re piced intone cage (cs Figure), Pov dealt (Contax poe ‘he Posltive stagger with decalage Ges sil enti sa; may nut aerobatics tracking alteBIPLANES, PART 1 (Coninidtom page 4) gives the upper wing more incidence— negative decalage—the lower wing more incidence. Positive decalage gives more of the ms {mum fift to the upper Wing and defays the stall of the lower wing to a higher angle of atack, acting like 2 lot of postive stagger. ‘Om the downside, it lao slightly lowers the combined maximum tift coefficient of the ‘wo winds. Negative decalage, elthough less commonly used, has just the opposite ltfect: it slightly increases the maximum Lk. Theoretically, negative decalage, by Making the lift of the twe wings more ‘equal, should reduce drag, but this has not ‘been bome out by experiment. Drag was very slightly reduced by a little positive ecalage, Positive decalage, especially when wed with positive stagger, also has a stabilizing influence, tending to make the nose rise as airspeed increases (good in a trainer, but ‘bad for aerobatics). This helps to permit the use of aslghuly smaller horizontal tai, although at a rather uneconomical cost in tems of liftand drag. ‘On a bige with postive stagger, more of the lower wing surface operates in the downwash of the upper wing, reducing its effective angie of attack and its tif, Positive decalage increases this effect. The chiet benefit of positive decalage—a softer stall—-may de:ract from clean entry to inside spins and snap rolls. Locating the CG well aft aids aerobatic line-holding ‘accuracy but may also cause pitch sensi ity at high speeds. A little neg: dectlage ay help suck 2 mode). Ina vertical dive, with the wings devel- oping zero net lift, a partial vacuum appears between the upper and lower wings. This isa result ofthe mild ventart effec: created by the convex surfaces of the jncent airfoils. Tis tends t suck the two wings together with a force that may exceed the weight of the aircraft, ‘ALful speed, stright and level, owing to the ventur effect. the lower wing of a cal bipe flying at about four times its stalling speed may carry nearly all the lift while the upper wing loafs. As the angle of attack ig increased, the apper wing rapidly takes over, developing about 10 percent more lift than the lower wing a higher lift oe‘Micienss (Figure 5). (On my bipe designs Ihave pat the inter- wing suction to good use by using plug-in interplane struts without positive retention. They make field assembly easier and, because they aren't Securely fastened tothe structure, they're unlikely to cause wing damage in mishap, The use of positive ve ecalage would reduce the suction and increase the possiblity ofthe srus coming ‘daft i flight, A small amount of preload (provided by making the struts a lite logger than required to just match the exp) makes the struts “spring” the wings apari jaa litle FLAPS ON BIPES? ‘Wing flaps are relatively rare on biplanss, ‘Theit wing louding is usually considerably lower than that of monoplanes, and their lide angle tends tp be steeper so they have less need for flaps. In addition, Maps don’t work as well on bipes. Depressing 4 flap on the upper wing interferes with the airflow over the upper surface of the lower wing and tends to reduce its it I the upper and lower wings are equat in siz, having aps only on the ‘upper wing will increase the toxal maxis mum Tit by 35 to 40 percent—ahout twos thinds as much as for a monoplane. For the Dest esl, flap travel oo tbs upper wing should be only a litle more than half hat ‘ofthe flaps on the lower wing. If only one wing is to have Maps, the lower wing is the better candidate. This increases total wing lift by about 20 per- cent in an equal-winged bipe, ie, one on ‘which the wings have the same aspect ratio and area. WING INCIDENCES Bipes are no different from monoplanes with respect 10 the effect of wing inc: dence. Bipes aro neal alvays ara te (Do nose wheel and, ike al wai-rg- fers they have been known to be a litle ‘squirrelly on the ground, particularly on hard surface Gust atk any Pits piled) Many full-scale bips use postive inc dence to lower the nose in fight (giving ‘he pilot a beter view) and to allow & Aeron dng st absoftely minima siraped, Pstve wing incidence makes the tail fy» litle higher During theo, he til is eater, anc you fone tit whee se tance in aching. pound looping is more Iiely. I never use incidence on my own nom-cale designs, but T do have a strong iifection for tfins and oub-codders “There reduce the angle of atic of both the wing ard theta wil axing —s0m thing that belt hep the ail whee i= Jy planed tougbout be takeo apd and ing rol, Grou looping has never been & preblem, even in a nasty crosswind, tecause om landing, thet wheel tends 0 touch st and yank the tir no ligne. swith the runway. Sobne and subaders Place mote vertical tai area in clean sr teow the sath of very diy sc that tends to hurt bipe-tail effectiveness, They pro- rote friendly handling st critically low air speeds. In Part 2, I'l discuss tapered wings, ailerons, dihedral bracing wits, wiplanes, fun-y designs and more. See yeu then! . OVERWORKED SERVOS (Conined rom pe 59) btic bi. For example, using half the ele- vvator travel requires only about half the torque around the hinge line. This permits changing the linkage to double the mechanical advantage of the Servo, and it resulis in only one-quarter of the servo ‘torque requirement, ‘THROW REDUCTION? ‘Adjusting the linkage to reduce rather than to increase control-surface throw may seem like the wrong way to go with model that responds poody. It wil, howew= cer, often help a large, “under-servo'ed" ‘model that gets downright scary at times when it takes forever to recover from & Jive. A model set up with 20 degrees of static elevator travel may stall the servo at 5 degrees of travel in dive recovery. IF it is set up with 10 degrees of travel, the same seivo may not stall in a dive util reaches about 7/ degrees of elevator deflection, because ofthe greater levernge fon the stubborn elevator. There will De some trade-off in response at fow air speed, but this jst might rid your mode! of 1 morbid interest in subierrancan explo- tation. On large models, fighting wing warp and incorrect seabiticer incidence ‘may dangerously ssp the serves" reserves of strength. These problems should be fixed —pronto. A large, horizontal ti} helps 10 sabilize the plane, but it requires alot more elevi- tor servo effort. Tepered wings roll mach ‘more easily with the ailerons than con stant-chord wings do, and they generally sive nicer all-around handling. Biplanes ‘ith inefficient two-aileron sewups place Ineavy demands on the aileron servas. The aileron-equipped lover wing is forced (© battle against the strongly roll-resisiant ‘upper wing, and this produces a lot of aileron-indaced yaw and drag and a sio¥~ ish ol rate ‘So muh forthe basics, In the conclusing part ofthis acicle, I will cover aerodysas ie balancing and other devices that ca vastly inctease the contro! capability a your servos.