By Don Hewes (EAA 32101) minimize problems in the future.
This article, therefore, is in-
12 Meadow Drive
Newport News, VA 23606
Overview
This three part article concerns the effects of rain and bugs
on the flight behavior of canard and tandem-wing airplanes which
have been of concern to a number of homebuilders for quite some
time. In the past few months a number of rather harrowing
inflight experiences have been related in some of the aviation
magazines and the apparent causes for them have been discussed
to some extent. This article covers the subject in considerably
more technical detail and addresses some aspects that have not
been treated elsewhere. Some recent NASA data pertinent to the
subject are presented along with some information supplied by
designers of these airplanes. An analysis and interpretation of
the available information is included along with a number of
suggestions and recommendations for interested designers and
homebuilders.
There are some areas which are not yet documented and some
which are still not clearly understood. However, based on availa-
ble information, it is judged that this behavior is not necessarily
dangerous BUT proper attention must be given to it in the design,
building and operation of a tail-first airplane. Because of the
complex interaction of the aerodynamic characteristics involved,
there are different forms of behavior that can be encountered with
airplanes of different design. Moreover, it appears that the be-
havior of airplanes of the same design may differ depending on
the specific design features, construction techniques and work-
manship details. Selection of the airfoils and accuracy in duplicat-
ing the shape, smoothness and alignment of the lifting surfaces
are considered to be of prime importance.
Because each homebuilt aiplane is more or less unique in the
aerodynamic sense due to the variables introduced during con-
struction, the builder must exercise his responsible role in assur-
ing the airworthiness of his own airplane. The builders and
designers can be of great mutual benefit by conducting specific
flight tests and exchanging detailed information in those areas
not yet well documented and understood.
Introduction
Recent issues of SPORT AVIATION, Homebuilt Aircraft and
Aviation Consumer have highlighted a number of instances in
which there have been extreme changes in the longitudinal flight
behavior of different homebuilt tail-first airplanes with particular
emphasis on the tandem-wing configuration. Accumulation of
rain, bugs or some other material that disrupts the laminar
airflow over the lifting surfaces has been attributed as the primary
cause for these changes that, in some cases, have resulted in forced
landings and injuries. Although it is important to understand
that this is the primary cause, it is equally important to under-
stand many of the other factors that are involved and how these
can be controlled by the designer and builder so as to avoid or
36 MAY 1983
tended to be an indepth assessment of the phenomenon to help
the designer and builder gain a better overall understanding.
In general, the several instances of extreme flight behavior
referred to in these magazine articles represent the extreme or
most severe cases of a phenomenon which I've chosen to call
"Flight Behavior Change" or "FBC" for convenience in this article
and for lack of a proper term. To say that these cases represent
the norm and apply equally to all current designs would be grossly
incorrect and would be a great injustice to the designers who have
made very sincere efforts to minimize or eliminate this type of
behavior. It is important, however, to relate to these cases because
they tend to "show us the way", but bear in mind that there are
many tail-first airplanes flying which show only minimal changes
in behavior or none at all.
Although FBC does occur with conventional airplanes, it is
generally of little concern for them. Sailplane enthusiasts have
long recognized and dealt with rain and bugs but the concern
there apparently has been primarily with the effects on perfor-
mance at cruise conditions. Now, however, the phenomenon has
become something of a problem with the new canard and tandem
wing designs not only from the standpoint of performance but,
more importantly, from that of control and maneuvering.
Because both canard and tandem-wing configurations are
generically similar, I'll generally use the term "tail-first" hereaf-
ter for convenience to refer to either a canard or a tandem-wing
design. By "generically similar", I mean that they both have two
lifting surfaces each carrying a significant portion of the airplane's
weight and both have the elevator located on the forward surface.
It is understood, of course, that the area and load ratios of the
surfaces are different and this may be important from the
standpoint of severity of the FBC, but this is not important for
purposes of classification. The difference between pusher and
tractor configuration is believed to be of relatively little signifi-
cance for this phenomenon.
FBC can be triggered by any one or more of several agents
including rain, bugs, frost, snow, ice or any other material that
disrupts the boundary layer airflow of the lifting surfaces. There-
fore, for convenience, I am simply using the term "contamination"
to refer to the condition brought on by any of these agents.
Contamination may produce either a pitchdown or pitchup
trim change and may be apparent to some degree over the complete
flight envelope. In some cases, it may become very serious as
airspeed is reduced and landing conditions are established or as
a takeoff is attempted. Furthermore, the nature and seriousness
of the problem can vary from one copy to another of the same
design.
We will cover this subject in three installments with the first
presenting an analysis of some of the aerodynamic factors in-
volved. The second installment will discuss some pertinent wind
tunnel and flight test data, and the last will discuss a number of
related subjects including suggestions and recommendations. Al-
though considerable technical details and data are involved, we
have tried to include definitions and explanations of those items
which may not be readily understood by non-technical readers.
Unfortunately, this led to a fairly lengthy text that many may
find tedious to read, but I encourage those who are interested in
tail-first airplanes to read it all the way to the end.
Background
I first took note of the phenomenon several years ago at one
of the forums at Oshkosh where a description was given of a very
mild change in trimmed airspeed along with a gradual change in
altitude when rain was encountered. Over the intervening years,
I had been hearing of an increasing number of similar experiences
and noted that some of the designers cautioned about flying in
rain or with dirty wings. Finally, when I started to build my
Dragonfly airplane over a year ago, I decided to took further into
the problem myself.
I've been a pilot since college days with essentially all my time
in lightplanes but I have briefly flown several larger airplanes
including helicopers and heavy twins. I have briefly flown four
different tail-first airplanes, the prototype VariEze, Dick Rutan's
Long-EZ, the RAF Long-EZ and the prototype Drangonfly This
experience certainly does not qualify me as a test pilot by any
stretch of the imagination but I felt that my past 33 years experi-
ence as an aero research engineer specializing in dynamic stability
and control at NASA's Langley Research Center provided me with
the background to approach the problem on a fairly sound techni-
cal basis. (I am now retired and have no direct connection with
NASA other than as a retiree.)
Fortunately, some of my former associates at NASA had just
completed a wind tunnel study using a full-scale model of the
VariEze tested in the Langley 30x60 foot wind tunnel and some
of the data were published recently (see Reference 1). The model
had been made in the Langley model shops and was a very
accurate replica of the VariEze design as depicted by the plans.
Since the tests were also run at speeds very close to the approach
and landing speeds for the VariEze, the wind tunnel data could
be considered as being directly applicable to the actual airplane
without worry about scale effects. The canard had been mounted
to the fuselage with a force measuring balance so that the direct
lift, drag and pitch contributions of the canard were recorded
along with total aerodynamic contributions of the complete air-
frame as measured by the primary balance system.
Some special tests were made in which water was sprayed on
the airplane so as to represent the conditions which appeared to
cause the pitch-change problems. Others were made with the
leading edges coated with coarse grit to act as a boundary layer
tripping device.
The researchers also had conducted some flight tests using a
VariEze built by EAA member Bob Woodall from Baltimore and
flown by him at the request of the NASA researchers. Other
related flight tests were made at Mojave, CA, through the cooper-
ation of Bun Rutan using a Long-EZ. These flight tests provided
some very important verification of the wind tunnel test results
(see Reference 2).
The VariEze was selected for testing because it incorporated
a number of unique and interesting advanced design features and
NOT because it had any significant problem. I have used these
data because they are my only convenient source of information
directly applicable to the subject of this article. By examining
these data it was possible to observe some trends which help
explain certain aspects of the FBC phenomenon.
At this point, I want to comment about the reasons for writing
this article. First, there is very little technical data available on
this subject and very little of this has been presented in the current
literature available to most homebuilders. Some of the canard
designers have spent much effort to evaluate the behavior of their
respective designs and have devoted considerable space in their
newsletter to this subject. However, there appear to be areas
which some have not fully evaluated.
Next, I'm sure that there is a very large group of potential
designers, builders and pilots who do not have access to the
information made available by the designers through their news-
letters and direct contacts with their builders. This group needs
information from some source to help in making decisions and
taking actions which could affect their safety and their satisfaction
with the airplane.
Consequently, it appeared appropriate that the subject be
reviewed in an open manner so as to create an avenue for greater
interchange of information. My background is that of a research
engineer working with the primary objective of conducting analyt-
ical, wind tunnel and flight studies to identify unusual behavior
of airplanes and attempting to find the cause for and solutions to
the problems encountered. The end product of such work was a
report of this effort written in an objective and unbiased manner,
insofar as possible, and distributed to appropriate interested per-
sons and organizations. With this background, it was only natural
for me to apply the same approach to this particular subject as
an extension of my interests in the homebuilt airplane movement
and my desire to help advance the principles of safe flight.
I'll conclude this discussion by noting that in the past few
months indirect references have been made in two separate news-
letters to statements that I have made concerning the behavior
of tail-first airplanes as well as to the material presented in this
article and in both cases I have been incorrectly quoted. I hope
that those who may have noted those references will reassess the
contents of those newsletters in the light of the material presented
in this article. Please bear in mind, of course, that there are
several areas in which personal opinion or judgment has to be
used because there is insufficient information on which to base
firm conclusions. In these cases, you must allow room for honest
differences of opinion.
Definition of Problem Areas
Our first concern is to identify just what flight behavior prob-
lem areas we are going to be concerned with. In general, there
appear to be seven areas in which contamination effects can play
a significant role; that is, 1) takeoff distance and speed, 2) rate
of climb, 3) landing speed and distance, 4) stick forces and pitch
trim travel, 51 maneuvers at takeoff and approach speeds, 6) cruise
efficiency, and 7) maximum speed. Of these, the last two are not
considered pertinent to the concerns of this article although they
may be of general interest.
Contamination effects should increase the distance and
airspeed required to takeoff and, in an extreme case, could actually
prevent takeoff altogether. Although takeoff may not be pre-
vented, the rate of climb after takeoff could be reduced to the
point that avoidance of ground obstructions could be difficult. The
same contamination effects that come into play at takeoff also
are involved in landing and, as a result, landing speed and distance
can be increased markedly. Perhaps of equal concern is the fact
that the ability to maneuver effectively at the takeoff and landing
speeds may be somewhat limited. Whether or not these areas
become real problems depends, of course, on the magnitudes of
the various contamination effects.
Small changes of a few ounces to a couple pounds in stick force
can be uncomfortable and disturbing for sustained periods of
cruising flight, especially if the stick trim system is inadequate,
but these should not be much of a bother during landing or takeoff.
However, if the force changes are in the order of several pounds
or more, the impact on the pilot may be significant.
While the effects themselves in some cases may not be too
severe, just the distraction of having to cope with unknown or
unfamiliar behavior at a critical moment could be serious, espec-
cially in the case of an inexperienced pilot. Thus, seemingly small
changes in the flight behavior due to contamination should not
be regarded lightly.
Discussion of Aerodynamic Factors
Which Influcence Flight Behavior
Two basic conditions under which an airplane is flown are 1)
with pilot holding the controls, and 2) with the controls free.
Although the controls can be easily moved by the pilot when he
is holding them, we will refer to this as the STICK-FIXED condi-
tion because he does hold the stick in a more or less fixed position
in normal steady flight. We will refer to the latter condition as
STICK-FREE. Two aspects of the stick-fixed condition will be
discussed as follows: 1) the aerodynamics of the airplane without
consideration of the forces that the pilot must apply to hold the
controls fixed, and 2) specific reference to the control forces and
the trim system used to balance the aerodynamic hinge moments.
In the following discussions, we will be considering the possible
effects of contamination on various aerodynamic characteristics
and the resulting changes in the flight path of the airplane that
would be induced by the aerodynamic changes. It is recognized
that we will be discussing these characteristics relative to more
or less steady level flight conditions, however, the results have a
direct bearing on the dynamic or non-steady cases of landing and
takeoff which are of more concern. We will not be concerned at
this time with the magnitude of the effects but with the possible
trends or changes involved.
SPORT AVIATION 37
 Stick-Fixed Aerodynamic Characteristics FIG. I - LEVEL FLIGHT BALANCE
We need to concern ourselves with three of the basic
aerodynamic characteristics of a tail-first airplane which regulate OF FORCES.
the longitudinal motion of the airplane, that is, lift L, drag D and
pitching moment M. We use the stick-fixed case so that we don't
have to worry at this point about the effects of a free floating
control surface on the pitching moments of the airplane. Actually,
we will be concerned not only with the TOTAL lift, drag and
pitching moment but, also, with the contributions to each of these
made mainly by the TAIL and the WING. For this part of the
discussion, DEFLECTION and TRIM of the elevator and POWER
or THRUST T remain CONSTANT unless otherwise noted.
In general, the effects of contamination of the wing and canard
normally would be expected to INCREASE DRAG and to DE-
CREASE LIFT at a given airspeed. Although the pitching mo-
ments of the individual components might not be altered signific-
antly, these drag and lift changes of the wing and tail result in
significant changes in the contributions of the components to the
total PITCHING MOMENT of the airplane. Furthermore, the
resultant pitch change, if there is one, MAY BE EITHER IN THE
NOSE-UP OR NOSE-DOWN direction depending on the location
of each component relative to the center of gravity.
To understand how these effects can influence the behavior of
the airplane, we'll first introduce the familiar simple force diag-
ram in Figure 1 which shows the TOTAL forces acting on an APPROX. EQUATIONS
airplane TRIMMED for STRAIGHT and LEVEL FLIGHT at some
arbitrary airspeed. The flight path is aligned with the airspeed
vector VI and is at a zero angle relative to the horizon. We'll L - W= O
assume that the airplane, in this case, is clear of contamination
(no rain, bugs or what have you). The main point of this diagram
is to remind you that, in level flight, the weight W of the airplane
is balanced by the total lift L and the thrust T from the propeller
is balanced by the total drag D for level flight, (for simplification,
we are ignoring the fact that the thrust may not be aligned exactly
opposite to the drag. Also, the simplified equations for the assumed
steady flight conditions are included in this and the following two FLIGHT PATH ANGLE (%)- 0
figures for those of you who are more technically oriented.) Be-
cause the airplane is assumed to be in trimmed flight, the pitching
moment is necessarily zero.
Next, in Figure 2, we show the diagram and equations for the FIG. 2 - EFFECTS OF LIFT AND
case where the airplane has been subjected to the assumed DRAG
and LIFT changes produced by the contamination. Taking the DRAG CHANGES (*L AND
effects one at a time, we first note that the direct effect of the
total DRAG INCREASE is to cause the airplane to PITCHDOWN L.
somewhat and establish a RATE OF DESCENT denoted by the
inclined flight path. Note that although the pitch ATTITUDE has
changed, the ANGLE OF ATTACK HAS NOT CHANGED. (A
pilot cannot determine angle of attack unless he has a suitable
sensor and indicator available.) The additional thrust required to
balance the higher drag was provided by a component of the
weight which now acts along the descending flight path.
If there had been no change in lift, there would have been NO ' J *\ "^^^*^^ __ — •——
SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN AIRSPEED. However, since the
total LIFT has to remain essentially equal to the weight of the
^r=^
l
airplane for our assumed condition of STEADY FLIGHT, the
effect of the LIFT DECREASE caused by contamination was to \
INCREASE THE AIRSPEED so as to restore the full amount of \

^
lift required for balance. (Note that, at a given angle of attack,
lift is a function of both airspeed and lift coefficient. When we \^W cosX2
say here that lift is decreased, we actually mean that lift coefficient
is decreased, thus airspeed must increase to regain the original
total lift.) This, in turn, resulted in additional DRAG and, since
W
both drag and airspeed were further increased, the FLIGHT
PATH and RATE OF DESCENT INCREASED further also. Thus,
we can see that a lift change tends to have a more complex
influence on the behavior of the airplane than a drag change.
If ONLY the lift had changed, the airspeed would have
changed just as much and the rate of descent would have changed
L 2-W cos
'?... *-"'/7TIZ
also because of the added induced drag.
Up to this point, we have not changed the pitching moment or
permitted the pitch control surface to move. So, we have the
airplane at the SAME ANGLE OF ATTACK to the airstream as
in the original situation. However, the PITCH ATTITUDE in
Figure 2 has changed to a slight nose down condition because of
the descending flight path angle. We now have the elements of a
pitchdown behavior, that is, INCREASED AIRSPEED and RATE
OF DESCENT with a NOSEDOWN ATTITUDE change even
though the pitching moment of the airplane has not been changed. RATE OF DESCENT =
If we had started originally with a climbing condition rather than
38 MAY 1983
level flight, the trends would have been the same, that is, the FIG. 3 - EFFECTS OF PITCH
airspeed would have increased and the rate of climb and noseup
attitude would have been reduced.
The fundamental effect of a PITCHING MOMENT CHANGE TRIM CHANGE
for steady flight conditions is to cause the airplane to CHANGE
TO A NEW ANGLE OF ATTACK where the total moment is
returned to zero. Of course, when this happens, BOTH the lift
and drag characteristics are altered EVEN FURTHER due to the
combined effects of angle of attack and airspeed. The nature of
the changes will depend on both the magnitude and direction of
the moment change, as well as the original angle of attack or
airspeed. If it is a noseup moment change, then the airplane will
tend to slow down and climb when operating close to cruise
conditions or slow down and descend when near landing condi-
tions. (The crossover point is the speed for best rate of climb, that
is, maximum lift/drag ratio.) The opposite tendencies will happen
if the pitching moment changes in the nosedown direction.
It is quite evident now that there is a rather large range of
possible combinations of effects for the STICK-FIXED condition
we asumed. In some cases, the pitching moment change may tend
to cancel the direct pitchdown effects of the contamination on lift
and drag, but in others, the moment change will further increase
those effects The MOST CRITICAL combination from the
standpoint of the pitchdown behavior appears to be a
NOSEDOWN MOMENT CHANGE ENCOUNTERED AT LOW
AIRSPEEDS This case is depicted in Figure 3
As we noted previously, the pitching moment changes are
dependent on the location of the individual components of the
airplane, so we'll now refer you to Figure 4 where we have a L3- W cos &3 = O
diagram for a TAIL-FIRST arrangement. Here we are considering
only the lift contributions of the wing and tail to the pitching W
moment of the airplane as these are major factors involved. One
of the features of current tail-first designs is that the tail carries
a significant share of the airplane's weight. For instance, the
VariEze tail carries about 30 percent of the weight and the Quick
ie, Q2 and Dragonfly about 60 percent. The amount depends on
the location of the center of gravity which is dictated by stability =0 AT
considerations. Obviously, any changes in the lift of either the
wing or tail are going to have a significant effect on the pitching
moment of the airplane.
It is evident that a pitchdown moment change will result if
there is a decrease in the tail lift and that an opposite moment
change will result from a loss in wing lift. There will be no net CURVE
moment change if both lifts change by the same percentage. Thus,
the actual net moment change will depend to a large extent on SLOPE
the degree to which the tail and wing are each affected by the
contamination. This is an important point which will be referred
to later. RATE OF DESCENT V3si*33
Stability and control considerations dictate that the FOR-
WARD LIFTING SURFACE MUST STALL BEFORE THE AFT
SURFACE, that is, that tail must stall before the wing. All
current tail-first designs have the primary elevator surface
mounted on the forward tail surface; consequently, at low speeds FIG. 4- SIMPLIFIED DIAGRAM OF
the elevator TENDS TO OPERATE IN STALLED FLOW CON-
DITIONS AND LOOSE EFFECTIVENESS. The term "elevator PITCHING MOMENTS FOR
effectivenss" refers to the ability of the elevator to generate a
pitching moment change with a change in elevator deflection.
This tendency to loose effectveness has been used in some, but
TAIL-FIRST DESIGN.
not necessarily all, tail-first designs to provide stall-proof charac-
teristics for the airplane as a whole. "Stall-proof means that the
wing of the airplane cannot be stalled and that adverse behavior L.
associated with a partically stalled wing is avoided by LIMITING , , '-w
THE MAXIMUM ANGLE OF ATTACK that can be reached. Very
careful attention to design details is required to provide this
feature and, if the design is compromised by poor workmanship
or other factors, the benefits of this feature may be lost.
Whether the airplane is or is not stall-proofed, the tail group
is subject to partial or full-stalled conditions near the minimum
airspeed of the airplane. Any factors which can influence pitch
trim of the airplane AND stall of the lifting surfaces very likely
will influence the MINIMUM AIRSPEED at which the airplane
can be flown and possibly lead to some serious stability and control
problems. If contamination by itself or in combination with factors W
associated with poor workmanship can cause the tail to lose lift
and stall at an angle of attack lower than intended by the designer,
it is possible that the minimum speed will not be low enough to
permit a safe takeoff or landing. On the other hand, if these factors Lc+ LW-W = O
have a strong influence on the wing, it is possible that the
minimum speed will be reduced to the point where other undesir-
able effects, such as wing rock or divergence, might be encoun-
(LcxXc) - CLW* Xw)=
tered. SPORT AVIATION 3«
 From the several points covered in the last few paragraphs,
it appears that the aerodynamic characteristics of the tail can be
very important in determining the nature and magnitude of the
FBC.
Up to this point, we have assumed that the throttle, elevator
and pitch trim controls have not been moved by the pilot and
have looked at what the resulting behavior of the airplane might
be. Rather than let the airplane respond in these ways, the pilot
most likely will move the controls to try to restore the airplane
to its original trimmed flight condition. The movement of the
controls from their original trimmed positions to the final posi-
tions will be direct indications of the effects of contamination on
the basic aerodynamic characteristics of the airplane. The subject
of measurements of these movements in a series of flight tests
will be addressed later in this article.
Control Forces For the Stick-Fixed Conditions
Now we need to consider the forces that the pilot must exert
to hold the stick fixed or to move it because they provide the
pilot's "feel" of the airplane and influence the manner in which
he controls its motions. Obviously, the forces must not exceed the
force capabilities of the pilot's arm, wrist and hand. But of equal
importance, they must stay within rather narrow limits to be
considered acceptable and they should be adjustable by the pilot
for reasons of comfort. The pitch control forces come from four
different forces — 1) the aerodynamic hinge moment of the
elevator, 2) the pitch trim system, 3) the control system friction,
and 4) the mass or inertial moments of the system. We will not
worry about the last two because they are not pertinent to this
discussion.
Please note that the hinge moment of a FIXED elevator has
no connection with the pitching moment of the airplane and will
not influence the motion of the airplane in anyway whatsoever.
Of course, if the elevator is deflected as a result of the hinge
moment, then a pitching moment will be produced and the
airplane's motion will be affected. But in this situation, it is the
DEFLECTION not the HINGE MOMENT that causes the motion.
That is not the case we are discussing at this time.
The hinge moment of the fixed elevator generally increases
with both angle of attack of the tail and deflection of the elevator
but the actual variation is dependent on the specific shape of the
elevator and location of the hinge line. We won't worry about the
details other than to note that at larger angles of attack (lower
airspeed) the elevator generally will have a moment in the trail-
ing-edge-up direction. Consequently, the pilot would have to pro-
duce a continuous rearward-pull force to hold the elevator fixed
at lower speed unless some form of a pitch trim system is provided.
Although some trim systems may balance part of the hinge mo-
ment using some aerodynamic means, such as a tab, there usually
are some mechanical springs included to facilitate adjustment of
the stick forces.
Once the control force is balanced to zero for a given airspeed,
any attempt by the pilot to move the stick from the trimmed
position will be resisted by the aerodynamic hinge moments and
the springs of the trim system. These forces provide the "feel" for
the stick.
The aerodynamic hinge moment is the direct result of essen-
tially the same pressure forces that act on the elevator to produce
it's contributions to lift of the complete tail surface. However, the
pressure forces acting at the trailing edge are more effective in
producing a moment about the hinge line than those close to the
hinge line, consequently, the hinge moment is very sensitive to
small surface or airflow changes at the elevator that may have
very little effect on the lift generated by the tail.
Let's assume then that contamination causes ONLY the
aerodynamic hinge moment of the elevator to change without
changing any other aerodynamic characteristic of the airplane.
Now, if the pilot had the stick force originally trimmed to zero
while in steady flight, a force will be exerted at the stick trying
to move it to a new position. If the pilot wants to maintain the
original airspeed, he must resist that force with his hand, at least
until he can readjust the trim system. As long as the surface does
not move, the change in only the aerodynamic hinge moment will
not produce an effect on the motion of the airplane BUT the pilot
will be feeling an effect through his stick. If the change in the
hinge moment may be exceeded and the pilot will have to apply
the extra force needed to completely balance the stick force.
Take note that either the change in the stick force or the trim
control position will be an indication or measure of the hinge
moment change. If some of the other aerodynamic characteristics
40 MAY 1983
also had been changed by contamination, as discussed in the
previous section, the stick force or trim control change would
reflect these other changes as well as the hinge moment changes.
More will be said about this later.
You probably are aware by this time that we have been talking
about two different kinds of "trim" relative to pitch behavior of
the airplane. One has to do with pitching moments about the CG
of the airplane, and I prefer to call this PITCH TRIM. The other
has to do with the pitch stick forces felt by the pilot and I prefer
to distinguish this from the other by calling it STICK TRIM. In
affect, pitch trim has to do with the POSITION of the pitch control,
that is, the position required to adjust the pitching moment to
zero at the desired airspeed. Also, stick trim has to do with the
FORCE exerted by the pilot to maintain pitch trim. If a pitch
trim system is used, then the stick force can be reduced to zero
in which case you can refer to stick trim in terms of trim-system
POSITION.
When we say the plane is FULLY TRIMMED, then we should
mean that both PITCH and STICK trim have been achieved under
steady flight conditions. In this case, the controls can be released
without disturbing the airplane.
I have found that a great deal of confusion and misunderstand-
ing often arises when a clear distinction is not made between
these different trim conditions. THIS DISTINCTION IS IMPOR-
TANT in our discussions of FBC.
Stick-Free Condition
Basically, if an elevator is completely free to float, it will float
at the specific deflection where the net hinge moment is zero for
any given flight condition. As long as the net hinge moment is
zero at the desired speed, then the airplane will be fully trimmed
and there will be no tendency for the airspeed to change. However,
if the aerodynamic hinge moment or the trim springs are altered,
then the elevator will tend to change to another angle thereby
causing the airspeed to change usless the stick is restrained from
moving.
Let's assume for the moment that contamination of the
airplane affects ONLY the hinge moments of the elevator, just
as we did initially in the last section. Also, let's assume that the
airplane has been fully trimmed for level flight and the stick
released before encountering contamination. Obviously, the
elevator will move and the airplane will respond to the elevator
motion in some manner as soon as the hinge moment changes
with contamination. For instance, if the elevator tends to float
further downward when contamination is encountered, the
airplane will pitch up and slow down to some lower airspeed. It
will also be climbing if the final speed is above that for best rate
of climb, or it will be descending if the speed is lower. Naturally,
if the elevator tends to float further upward, the airplane will
pitch down and the airspeed will increase. If the floating angle
is changed too much, it will be necessary for the pilot to intercede
either by readjusting the trim control or holding the stick if the
trim control is not sufficient.
If the phugoid motion of the airplane (the long-period oscilla-
tory pitching motion) is very lightly damped, it is possible that a
sudden encounter with the contamination will tend to initiate an
oscillatory response. However, this should impose no serious prob-
lem unless the speed change is significant, in which case, the pilot
most likely will want to grab the stick while he retrims the
airplane.
If the other aerodynamic characteristics are also changed with
contamination, the resultant behavior of the airplane with con-
trols free would not necessarily be any more severe but the be-
havior could be completely different depending on which charac-
teristic was affected the most and which was the most influential.
Because of the many variables involved for the stick-free case,
not much useful information can be learned about the sources of
the changes produced by contamination.
Use of the Controls As Indicators of Contamination Effects
In the previous section, we have been discussing primarily the
possible effects of contamination on the aerodynamics of the
airplane and the resulting types of flight path responses without
regard to the magnitude of these possible effects and how to
document their impact on behavior of the airplane. The answer
is to utilize wind tunnel data, if available, for some of the informa-
tion and to extract some of it from actual flight tests. Fortunately,
we have some pertinent wind tunnel data available and will
discuss that in the next installment. There also is a limited
amount of flight data and that will be discussed later as well. At
this point, however, we need to discuss just what type of flight
data is needed and how best to use it.
To obtain all of the desired information from flight tests, we
would need a complete set of instrumentation that will record
accurately all of the flight path variables involved along with the
positions of all the flight controls. This would permit us to calcu-
late all the changes in lift, drag and pitching moment and relate
them to the actual motions that resulted from the effects of con-
tamination. Of course, this would be a very costly and time con-
suming process and is not suitable for our purposes. Therefore,
we must rely on some simpler flight test data that relate directly
to the behavior of the airplane but can be obtained with very
simple instrumentation.
The use of the control movements required to reestablish the
original flight conditions, as mentioned briefly in the prior section,
provides us with a suitable method which can be easily im-
plemented. All that is required for much of the information are
calibrated scales mounted on the appropriate controls so that the
pilot can observe the before and after control settings and a
notebook and pencil to record the measurements. Even if measure-
ments are not taken, some useful qualitative information can be
obtained from the pilot's impressions of the control movements
as long as he is properly prepared to make the observations.
To use these observations or measurements it is important to
understand the significance of the various control movements
involved. For instance, if ONLY the trim position or stick force
changed, then it is known that the hinge moment was the only
aerodynamic characteristic that was influenced by contamination.
It is apparent then that only a modification of the elevator will
be effective if the FBC is serious enough to require a fix. On the
other hand, if movements of the stick or throttle were also in-
volved, then other aerodynamic characteristics were affected by
the contamination and other types of modifications might be
dictated.
As long as the airspeed and flight path are returned to their
original conditions, the change in throttle position reflects the
TOTAL drag change caused by the contamination assuming, of
course, that operation of the engine and propeller have not also
been influenced. I've emphasized the word "total" because we
cannot obtain separate indications of the drag contributions of
the individual components of the total airplane with this very
simple method.
The change in the stick position reflects a NET change in lift,
pitching moment and elevator effectiveness. To separate the com-
bined change, it is necessary to add an angle of attack sensor and
indicator so as to determine if the angle of attack had changed
or not. If there had been no angle of attack change, then there
would have been no change in the total lift. In this case, the stick
position reflects only the net changes in pitching moment and
elevator effectiveness.
The change in angle of attack indicates a change in total lift
of the airplane but does not differentiate between the wing and
tail lift contributions. This differentiation, however, can be infer-
red from the indicated change in pitching moment changes derived
from the stick position measurements. For instance, a pitchup
change would suggest that the wing lost more lift than the tail,
and vice versa.
As you have no doubt realized, this kind of analysis is not
exactly easy and a fair amount of judgment is involved because
the measurements involved are only INDICATIONS of the con-
tamination effects and not direct accurate measurements. Even
though they are relatively crude, they should help to document
the type of behavior involved and to isolate the possible source
of the major aerodynamic changes that cause that behavior. Such
information is helpful in comparing various airplanes and in
trying to develop fixes for major problems.
Tail-Aft Versus Tail-First Pitch Behavior
The question as to why FBC is not as apparent with conven-
tional tail-aft designs as with tail-first designs can be answered
to a large extent by noting that, in the case of the TAIL-AFT
design, the wing is intended to carry essentially all of the weight
of the airplane. The CG is therefore located very close to the lift
of the wing (near the wing quarter-chord location). Although a
noticeable lift change may result from contamination of the wing,
its effect on the pitching moment will be small because of the
negligible moment arm. Furthermore, the design requirements
for the aft-tail are different than previously and an airfoil shape
less affected by contamination is normally used. Also, the elevator
in its tail-aft location tends to maintain sufficient power at low
speeds so that the pilot can override any serious moment changes
induced by the contamination
Discussion Summary and Comments
The two physical features that make most current canard and
tandem wing airplanes generically similar also make their pitch
behavior susceptible to the effects of contamination. These fea-
tures are 11 carrying of a significant portion of the weight by each
of two lifting surfaces, and 2) location of the elevator or pitch
control on the forward lifting surface. Because of these features,
the aerodynamics of the forward surface or the tail can have a
major influence on the behavior of the airplane when contamina-
— tion is encountered. However, there is a large number aero-
dynamic characteristics and their combinations for the airplane
as a whole that can be altered by contamination and produce
numerous types of pitch behavior.
Specific areas to be concerned with are 11 takeoff distance and
speed, 2) rate of climb following takeoff. 3i landing speed and
distance, 4( stick force and trim control travel, and 51 maneuvers
during takeoffand approach. Knowledge of the specific responses
of the airplane to encounters with contamination under carefully
controlled conditions will help identify the specific aerodynamic
factors involved and should aid in finding methods for correcting
serious problems in these areas of concern. The following is a
summary of the responses to changes in specific aerodynamic
forces:
1) An increase in ONLY drag caused by contamination will
cause an increase in the rate of descent (decrease rate of climb)
and cause the airplane's pitch attitude to change to some extent
in the nose down direction. Angle of attack and airspeed less than
maximum will not be affected to any noticeable degree.
2) A decrease on ONLY lift will cause a direct increase in
airspeed which, in turn, causes the drag to increase further. Con-
sequently, the rate of descent and pitch attitude will change also,
BUT there will be no angle of attack change.
3) A change in ONLY pitching moment will cause the angle
of attack to change which in turn will cause changes in the pitch
attitude, airspeed and rate of descent. The direction of the change
will be determined primarily by the loss of lift of the wing and
tail. A pitch-down change will be produced by a lift loss at the
tail and a pitch-up change by a loss at the wing. The changes in
rate of descent will depend on the trimmed airspeed relative to
the speed for best rate of climb (maximum lift drag ratio) of the
airplane. The most critical condition for a pitch-down behavior
appears to be the loss of tail lift at low airspeeds.
4)A change in ONLY the elevator hinge moment will cause
the airspeed to change ONLY if the stick is free. If the stick is
held fixed, the change in only the hinge moment will cause the
force required to hold the stick fixed to change, or the pitch trim
control to be changed by the pilot so as to reduce the force back
to zero.
Movements of the controls, that is, the changes in elevator
stick position (pitch trim and trim control position (stick trim) as
well as the throttle, required to return the airplane to the original
trimmed flight condition, can be used to document the FBC and
to aid in finding the possible causes of the behavior.
In this first installment, we have been concentrating on basic
aerodynamic and flight dynamic principles without regard to
specific details of a particular tail-first configuration. Next month
we will cover pertinent NASA wind tunnel and flight tests of the
VariEze airplane and discuss those construction and operational
factors which appear to contribute to FBC. We will also discuss
the relation of these findings to the several other current tail-first
designs.
References
1. Yip, Long P. and Coy, Paul F.: Wind-Tunnel Investigation
of a Full-Scale Canard-Configured General Aviation Aircraft.
13th ICAS Congress/AIAA Aircraft Systems and Technology Con-
ference, Seattle, Washington, Aug. 22-27, 1982. ICAS Paper
Number 82-6.8.2.
2. Holmes, Dr. B. J. Obara, C. J.: Observations and Implica-
tions of Natural Flow on Practical Airplane Surfaces. 13th ICAS
Congress/AIAA Aircraft Systems and Technology Conference,
Seattle, Washington. August 22-27, 1982. ICAS Paper Number
82-5.1.1.
SPORT AVIATION 41

By Don Hewes (EAA 32101)
12 Meadow Drive
Newport News, VA 23606
I N THE FIRST installment of this 3 part article, we discussed
primarily aerodynamic characteristics that could influence the
flight behavior of tail-first airplanes when they encounter some
form of contamination; that is, rain, snow, frost, bugs, dirt or
what have you. The term "Flight Behavior Change" or "FBC"
was coined to identify this influence. This month we will look
specifically at some pertinent wind tunnel and flight test data
obtained by NASA using the VariEze airplane and relate these
findings to our previous discussions of FBC and to the behavior
of several other current tail-first designs. We will also discuss
various design, construction and operational factors that can have
some significant effect on FBC.
Before proceeding, however, I would like to restate what I said
previously: that the VariEze was selected by NASA because it
incorporated a number of unique and interesting advanced design
features and NOT because it has some particular problem. The
data were used for this article because they were the only data
available pertinent to the subject of this article. The specific data
applies only to the VariEze design and should not be applied to
the other designs without proper consideration being given to the
physical differences. However, some of the trends and effects noted
can be applied in a more or less straight forward manner as will
be discussed in this installment.
Wind Tunnel Data For VariEze Tail Surface
In the first installment we focused our attention on the critical
nature of the tail surface, so let's examine this further by looking
at the NASA wind tunnel data obtained from Reference 1 for the
VariEze's tail surface. Figure 5 shows how the lift of the tail and
the complete airplane varies in the wind tunnel as the angle of
attack of the airplane is varied with the elevator set at several
deflections for the clean or uncontaminated condition. (These data
for the tail are given in terms of the area of the main wing and,
consequently, have smaller values than you would normally ex-
pect to see. The difference between the two curves represents the
lift contribution of the wing and the fuselage combination.)
Note that the increments of tail lift produced by deflection of
the elevator (the spacing between the tail lift curves) decrease as
the elevator is deflected further and further downward. This is
especially evident for angles of attack above about 10°. Also, note
that the canard begins to stall at about 14° with zero deflection
BUT it begins at about 8° with maximum down deflection. Thus,
DOWNWARD deflection of the elevator REDUCES THE LIFT
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ELEVATOR AND CAUSES EAR-
LIER STALL of the complete canard surface. Bear in mind that
this surface uses a slotted flap as the elevator which generally is
more effective in generating lift increments with deflection than
48 JUNE 1983
the simpler plain flap used in other tail-first designs. The general
trends in the data as illustrated here should be fairly similar,
however.
In Figure 6, three sets of data are shown, one for the tail with
a dry smooth surface (FREE), one with the leading edges artifi-
cially roughened with a small amount of coarse grit glued to both
left and right tail panels (FIXED), and the last with both panels
smooth but with one panel wetted with water sprayed from nozzles
to simulate rain (FREE, WATER ON). The elevator deflection is
zero for all cases. (The terms "free" and "fixed" refer to the types
of air flow transition associated with the smooth and roughened
leading edges.)
There is a LOSS OF ABOUT 27% of the TAIL LIFT through-
out the normal flight range of angles of attack for the second
set of data compared with the first set showing that the ap-
plication of the coarse grit, representing a "bad case of the
bugs", had a very pronounced effect on the aerodynamic charac-
teristics of the canard. The loss of lift produced by the WATER
SPRAY IS ROUGHLY EQUIVALENT TO THAT OF THE GRIT
when you consider that only half of the canard was sprayed with
water. There are also corresponding increases in the drag of the
canard associated with these losses of life.
These are very large changes in the aerodynamic characteris-
tics and certainly indicate a significant effect of contamination
on the characteristics of the tail surface. (Remember, however,
we are looking only at the tail contribution and not the total aero
characteristics of the airplane.) Of course, the influence of surface
contamination on the drag of sailplanes has been recognized for
many years and is associated with the premature TRANSITION
from laminar to turbulent flow which causes the drag to increase
significantly but does not alter the lift to any extent at cruise
conditions. The somewhat unusual aspect of these data is the
relatively large loss of lift at the low angles of attack due to the
roughness but this type of loss can be found with some other
airfoils that are unusually thick. The loss is attributed to prema-
ture turbulent flow SEPARATION near the trailing edge occur-
ring at the lower angles of attack.
The trends noted in the data do correspond to those assumed
in our earlier discussions, however, we are missing elevator hinge
moment data which unfortunately were not available.
Discussion of Tail Sensitivity to Contamination
What is it that makes the tail aerodynamics so sensitive to
the effect of rain and bugs? The quick answer to this question is
that it is the particular type of airfoil that is being used for the
tail surface and is not the location of the surface on the airplane.
But this needs explanation.
As air flows past an airfoil, the molecules of air next to the
surface are slowed by the frictional forces acting between the
molecules and the airfoil surface as well as the molecules them-
selves. This action forms what is referred to as a boundary layer
on both the top and lower surfaces. We will concern ourselves
with the layer over the upper surface. This boundary layer and
what happens to it are the key factors to the FBC phenomenon.
 FIG. 5 - LIFT CHARACTERISTICS OF
•8f VARIEZE (REF I.)
Q-«.
.6

- 8 - 4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
WING STALL

CANARD STALL

12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
a, cleg
SPORT AVIATION 49
 CANARD TRANSITION
.4
.3
.2
.1
0 ,01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07
- 4 0 4 8 12
16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
a,deg
FIG. 6 - EFFECTS OF CONTAMINATION ON CANARD.
The boundary layer grows in thickness from just a few
molecules at the nose to several tenths of an inch as the flow
progresses toward the trailing edge. If we were to measure the
velocity distribution across the boundary layer with a very small
velocity probe and plot the variation of the velocity as a function
of the distance from the airfoil surface, we would be looking at
what is called a "velocity profile" as shown in Sketch A. As you
can see, the actual outer edge of the layer where the velocity
becomes constant is very difficult to locate, so for convenience we
actually refer to the thickness as that point where the velocity
has reached some arbitrary percentage of the free stream velocity
above the surface. We are not really interested in the actual
thickness for this discussion but rather in the manner in which
it changes and the character of the flow within this layer.
The flow in the boundary layer near the nose of the airfoil is
very orderly as the molecules slide smoothly, one over the other,
and we have what is called "laminar" flow as long as the surface
itself is relatively smooth. This results in a low drag or shearing
force on the airfoil. The velocity profile for laminar flow shows a
very rapid increase in velocity in a distance of only a few
molecules. The shape of the profile is depicted in Sketch B. Al-
though the boundary layer gets progressively thicker as the flow
moves aft from the nose, the shape of the profile does not change.
The significance of this is that the molecules within the boundary
layer maintain most of their energy and are able to continue
moving in a uniform manner following the contour of the airfoil
for some distance. The greater the distance the laminar flow
continues, the lower the drag will be.
At some point along the airfoil, however, the molecules are
going to start loosing their uniform motion and begin to tumble
over each other. This action is referred to as "transition" and the
50 JUNE 1983
O FREE
D FIXED
O FREE, WATER ON
point where this occurs is referred to as the "transition point". At
this point, the layer thickens, as illustrated in Sketch C, and the
flow from here on to the trailing edge and beyond is very random
in nature and referred to as "turbulent". The velocity profile for
this condition, also shown in Sketch B, indicates that not only
has thickness increased but the velocity of the molecules at a
given distance has decreased greatly. This condition creates much
more drag on the airfoil and the flow finds it much more difficult
to follow the contour of the airfoil exactly. Although the lift being
generated by the airfoil is not altered to any significant degree
by the transition to turbulent flow, the POTENTIAL FOR SEP-
ARATION of the flow from the airfoil altogether is increased. If
separation does occur, the result is then a marked loss of lift over
those portions of the airfoil aft of the "separation point". In effect,
the flow at the separation point starts to reverse direction and
the air from the lower surface starts to spill over the trailing edge.
Two of the key factors affecting the SEPARATION POINT are
the THICKNESS of the boundary layer and the LOCATION OF
THE TRANSITION POINT. If the transition point is located
FORWARD on the airfoil where the boundary layer is quite thin,
then the boundary layer becomes thicker immediately behind the
transition point, as indicated in Sketch C, but the overall velocity
or energy level within the turbulent boundary layer is relatively
high. The potential for separation in this case is RELATIVELY
LOW. If, on the other hand, the transition point is located much
further AFT where the laminar boundary layer has thickened
considerably and become "aged", that is, the molecules close to
the surface have lost most of their energy, then the turbulent
layer that now forms is very much thicker, as indicated in Sketch
D, and its energy level is greatly reduced. The potential for
separation is now RELATIVELY HIGH.
 The expanding shape of the forward portions of all airfoils
creates a positive pressure gradient which helps the air molecules
move out of the way of the wing as it passes through the air. This
favorable gradient also helps to damp or stabilize the small
amounts of airflow turbulence that tend to build up in the boun-
dary layer. This causes the TRANSITION POINT to be further
aft on the airfoil than it would be if there were no favorable
gradient.
The tapering shape of the rear portion of the airfoil creates a
negative or adverse pressure gradient which tends to cause the
airflow to become turbulent sooner than it would if there were
no adverse gradient. Thus the TRANSITION POINT tends to
move forward in the presence of such a gradient. Not only this
but also the negative gradient, if strong enough, will cause the
SEPARATION TO OCCUR PREMATURELY.
Increasing angle of attack to produce greater lift increases the
pressure gradients over both portions of the airfoil. This increase
in the negative gradients over the aft portion is what causes the
airfoil to stall ultimately. If one airfoil at zero lift has a greater
negative gradient than another airfoil due to greater trailing-edge
taper, then that airfoil will stall at a lower angle of attack and
develop less lift than the other.
The first of the two airfoils shown in Figure 7 is known as the
GU 25-5(11)8 and is the one used on the VariEze tail. The GU
25 and variations of it are used on most all of the other canard
designs currently flying as well. It is a laminar-flow airfoil de-
veloped to give high lift at quite low Reynolds numbers (low
airspeed) and also to have some unique stall characteristics which
make it very useful for the highly loaded condition unique to the
tail-first designs.
The GU airfoil obtains its special characteristics by having a
rather large thickness (20%) and having this thickness located
quite far aft. These features cause the boundary layer to remain
laminar over about 55% of the upper surface and much further
aft on the lower surface under normal conditions thereby produc-
ing very low drag. Comparison with the modified NASA GAW-1
airfoil used for the less heavily loaded main wing of the VariEze,
also given in Figure 7, shows that the maximum thickness of the
GU airfoil is greater than that of the GAW airfoil.
For the GU airfoil, as long as the flow is laminar before
reaching the negative-gradient region and the angle of attack is
not too large, the flow will continue to stay attached to the surface
so that the full chord length of the airfoil can produce lift until
the normal stall angle is reached. If, however, the flow has become
turbulent due to roughness on the leading edge surface before
reaching the region of adverse pressure gradient, then premature
separation or stalling may occur even though the angle of attack
is far below that for the normal stall, perhaps at zero angle of
attack or less. Consequently, the GU airfoil will experience PRE-
MATURE SEPARATION when there is sufficient accumulation
of any type of material near the leading edge that will induce
turbulence. A small amount of roughness or waviness existing in
the surface may not, by itself, cause the separation because of the
stabilizing effect of the positive pressure gradients along the
forward portions of the airfoil. But this should tend to make the
tail susceptible to much smaller amounts of contamination than
otherwise.
It should be noted that other types of airfoils, such as that
used for the wing, are not as critical from the standpoint of
premature separation because 1) the shape of the forward position
tends to cause transition to occur further forward, 2) the adverse
pressure gradients due to the aft shape are not as severe as that
for the GU airfoil, or 3) there is a combination of both. However,
these other airfoils are not necessarily immune to the problem.
It is possible that there are a number of other airfoils, including
modifications of the GU section less critical as far as contamina-
tion is concerned, that would be better suited for use on tail-first
designs.
the airplane flying in steady flight. The other points represent
non-steady flight, but the distinction is usually not made in this
type of figure by the engineer because of normal practice.
As pointed out earlier, the "clean" canard stalled in the range
of about 8 to 14 degrees angle of attack but it can be clearly seen
in Figure 5 that the complete airplane is not fully stalled until
about 24° is reached. Furthermore, the figure shows that the
ELEVATOR CANNOT TRIM THE AIRPLANE TO ANGLES OF
ATTACK HIGHER THAN ABOUT 17°. There appears to be a
wide safety margin for stall of the wing built into this design,
however, the margin actually is not as wide as it appears because
there are aerodynamic problems associated with a partially stalled
wing which must be considered. Departure of the lift curves from
a straight line at about 17° identifies the initiation of the partially
stalled condition. Thus, the margin actually is very small.
The loss in elevator effectiveness associated with the stall-
proofing feature discussed earlier is evidenced by the bunching
of the curves for the higher elevator deflections which occurs in
the range of 15 to 17° angle of attack. (Refer to the portions of
the pitching moment curves close to the CM = 0 axis in the upper
figure.) The significance of this loss can be seen with the aid of
the solid curve of Figure 8 which shows the ability of the elevator
to trim the airplane. This curve is a cross-plot of the data given
in Figure 5 for the "clean" condition. It shows that the elevator
cannot trim the airplane to a trimmed lift coefficient greater than
about 1.5 which corresponds to the 17° angle of attack limit just
mentioned. (An airspeed scale in knots has been added to the
original figure for reference purposes. These airspeeds refer to
non-maneuvering level flight for the aft CG position at gross
weight at sea level and may not agree directly with the airspeeds
indicated in flight.) This indicates that a speed lower than about
61 knots could not be reached even though the elevator was
deflected to relatively large downward (positive) angles. Changes
in weight and center of gravity position will alter the curve
somewhat but the general trend will still be evident.
This figure also shows a dashed curve for the "dirty" condition
in which the flow was tripped by grit at the leading edges of the
wing and tail. Comparison of the two curves shows that the effect
of contamination was to cause a noticeable downward shift in the
elevator deflection required to trim at a given lift coefficient or
airspeed and that an increase of about 8 to 10 knots for the
minimum airspeed due to contamination is indicated. This result
can be traced directly to the loss of tail lift illustrated in Figure
CANARD
GU 25-5(11)8
WING

Complete-Airplane Wind Tunnel Data

The pitching-moment data for several elevator settings as
measured for the "clean" condition of the complete airplane are
also presented in Figure 5 along with the previously mentioned
lift data. The pitch data are given in coefficient form based on
the wing area and mean chord of the main wing with the center
of gravity located at the design aft limit. For those of you who
MODIFIED NASA GAW-I
are not familiar with wind tunnel data, I'll point out that only
the data points for lift and drag for which the pitching moment
coefficient is zero, that is, trimmed lift and drag, correspond to
FIG. 7-AIRFOIL COMPARISON.
SPORT AVIATION 51
 15 CANARD TRANSITION
FREE
——— FIXED
10
-5 150 106
AIRSPEED, KNOTS
-10
-0.5 0 0.5
L
trim
FIG. 8 - ELEVATOR TRIM CHARACTERISTICS FOR AFT
C.G.CREF. 0
6 and its associated effect on the pitching moment produced by
the tail relative to the CG of the airplane.
The results of the wind tunnel tests are consistent with the
trends that were discussed in the previous installment.
Some of you who recall that an airfoil normally stalls at about
14 to 16 degrees may wonder about the rather high 24° angle of
attack at which the VariEze main wing stalls as shown in Figure
5. Bear in mind that the VariEze main wing is quite highly swept
and this has the effect of reducing the slope of the lift curve and
extending the stall to the higher angles of attack. You will find
that the straight or nearly straight wings used in the other
tail-first designs will stall at the lower angles.
Discussion On Use Of Excessive Elevator Deflections
The marked upswing of the solid curve shown in Figure 8 is
attributed partly to the significant stable break (nose down) in
the pitching moment curve as angle of attack is increased beyond
about 14° with zero elevator deflection. This break is associated
with the initial stalling of the canard. However, the upswing of
the curve is also attributed to the loss of effectiveness of the
elevator as the elevator is deflected further and further from its
zero position, noted earlier. It is especially important that suffi-
cient elevator effectiveness be retained at speeds just above
minimum so that the airplane can be safely maneuvered for
take-off or landing. This being the case, then it is important to
not "use up" the elevator for purposes of trimming the airplane
in cruise and high speed flight. In other words, it is important to
adjust the relative incidence of the tail and wing so that the
elevator will be trimmed close to zero deflection or, perhaps,
slightly up for cruise conditions.
If flight tests reveal that excessive amounts of down elevator
are being used to maintain steady conditions in the normal flight
envelope, there are problems with the construction and/or rigging
of the airplane. These problems can be traced to improper airfoil
52 JUNE 1983
max
87 75 67 61 58 53
1.0 1.5 2.0
shape, incidence or twist distribution of the lifting surfaces and
should be corrected before considering the airplane to be fully
airworthy. We will say more on these items a little bit later,
but the reason for mentioning them here is to make the point
that the amount of ELEVATOR DEFLECTION required for a
given airspeed can be used as a PARAMETER in evaluating how
closely a given copy of a particular design matches the original
or other copies. If the deflections match within 2 or 3 degrees for
the same airspeed, weight and CG location, then there is some
assurance that the airplane is properly constructed and rigged.
Comparison With Flight Data
Now, let's look at some VariEze flight test data to see if they
agree with the wind tunnel data.
Figure 9 shows a plot of the variations of elevator deflection
with airspeed for the conditions of level flight with both "clean"
and "dirty" leading edges. These data were obtained from a series
of unpublished NASA tests of the VariEze that were related to
those reported in Reference 2 for the Long-EZ. The figure reveals
that the airspeed was reduced, the minimum airspeed was in-
creased and more down elevator deflection was required to main-
tain a given speed within the speed band when the leading edges
were contaminated. Note that very little additional deflection was
required at the high speed end whereas added deflections of 3 to
5 degrees were required at the low speed end. Aside from an offset
of about 3° at the high speed end of the curves, there is reasonably
good agreement between the curves given in Figure 8 for the wind
tunnel tests and those of Figure 9 for the flight tests. Thus, it
appears that there is good qualitative agreement between the
wind tunnel results and those obtained from flight test. (There
are a number of technical reasons for the data from these two
different types of testing to differ to some extent, consequently
engineers never expect to get exact agreement.)
 14
12
V MIN.
10
ELEVATOR
8
DEFLECTION
DE6.
6
I_
60 80
INDICATEDAIRSPEED, KNOTS
FIG. 9 -FLIGHT TEST DATA
A reasonable question to raise at this point is, "Well, did the
flight tests reveal any significant FBC as far as the pilot was
concerned?" The answer to this is a qualified "Perhaps". It was
observed that the landing and take-off speeds with the "dirty"
edges were noticeably higher than normal. This might present a
problem to a pilot unfamiliar with the airplane, especially if he
tried to operate from a short field. However, it should be noted
that the tests really were inconclusive relative to FBC behavior
because they were not tailored to study this phenomenon and the
test pilot was not specifically asked to address this problem.
The tests were made primarily to obtain the performance data
for straight and level flight with power required to sustain con-
stant altitude. No tests were made to determine effects on rate of
climb and on the stick forces or trim. Also, banked and accelerated
maneuvers at low airspeeds, such as might be performed in abnor-
mal landings and take-offs, and forward CG loading conditions
were not performed because they were not considered pertinent
to the primary objective of these particular tests. Inasmuch as
these maneuvers and conditions require additional down-elevator
deflections from those required for normal level flight, they are
pertinent to the FBC problem and need to be performed. More on
this subject will be said later.
An additional comparison of flight data can be made by exa-
mining the Long-EZ test data given in Reference 2. We should
note that the Long-EZ appears to be similar to the VariEze but
does differ in several respects. The wing is considerably larger
and carries more of the total weight of the airplane. It also has
less sweepback and uses a different airfoil section. The canard,
however, appears to be quite similar. The data, shown in Figure
10, were obtained for the same conditions as those for the VariEze
and indicate somewhat similar results. Some later data provided
by Burt Rutan for the Long-EZ show essentially the same trends
as in Figure 10 but indicate that the minimum airspeed was
affected only slightly by loss of the laminar flow.
Transition
o free
fixed
V MAX.
100 120 140 160
FOR VARIEZE.
Just as I was completing this article Burt invited me to come
to Mojave and fly the Long-EZ to check on its flight behavior. As
it turned out, I arrived there in the midst of the series of heavy
rain storms that hit California at the end of January and had an
excellent opportunity to fly in both rain and dry air. Dick Rutan
provided me with a very effective demonstration of aerobatics
with his plane in the rain and then I explored low speed behavior
in both rain and dry air and found no significant deterioration in
the flight characteristics. I essentially repeated the same thing
with Mike Melvill in the factory Long-EZ because Dick's bird is
not a stock Long-EZ, but there was very little difference between
the two as far as rain effects were concerned. Inasmuch as I was
riding in the back seat, I did not make the take-offs and landings
but these did appear to be reasonable even though it was raining
at the time. Although these flights do not represent exhaustive
testing under all conditions they did serve to demonstrate to me
that the Long-EZ design and these particular copies of it have no
significant FBC piloting problems even though the flight tests do
show some influence on the elevator characteristics.
Comparison of FBC Characteristics
For Copies of the Same Design
There are no specific data available to me for comparing the
FBC characteristics of various copies of the VariEze design. How-
ever, in recent discussions, Burt Rutan has stated that there have
been noticeable differences in these characteristics observed for
the large group of VariEze airplanes currently flying. In the case
of a few of these airplanes, very definite pitchdown tendencies
have been encountered while, for the majority, only relatively
mild tendencies have occurred having no significant effects on
flight behavior. Surprisingly, in a few instances, a very mild
pitchup has been encountered. It would appear that the results
obtained from the NASA tests were consistent with those obtained
SPORT AVIATION 53
 for the majority of these airplanes currently in use, but these tests
do not account for the extremes noted in a limited number of cases.
As I'm sure you're already aware, no two of these homebuilt
copies can be built EXACTLY alike and none can be exactly like
the original version because of the building tolerances involved
and the small changes introduced by each builder to suit his
individual requirements. It, therefore, should be no surprise to
anyone in learning that the flight behavior of these do differ to
some extent. The real problem is the large range of this variability.
While some of these extreme cases may be attributed directly to
rather extensive modifications to the original design or very poor
workmanship, there apparently are some where there are no
readily apparent differences to explain the behavior.
In our earlier discussions, we spent much time showing that
different forms of FBC could be produced by each of the basic
aerodynamic forces and moments. Also we showed that the exact
form would depend on the extent that the aerodynamic contribu-
tions of the components of the airplane were influenced by con-
tamination. Discussions of the tail and its airfoil, which have been
identified as being a primary source for the FBC phenomenon,
revealed that the tail's contributions were very sensitive to small
irregularities on the surface of the tail. It is only reasonable,
therefore, to conclude that some cases of extreme behavior may
have resulted from SMALL DIFFERENCES in various features
of the airplane or other factors that are not necessarily readily
apparent. If so, then, we need to evaluate the effects of small
variations of a number of design, construction and operational
factors.
Unfortunately, there are no technical data to show us the
relative effects of the numerous factors that might be involved.
Consequently, we can only list those that we think might be
involved and discuss their possible impact. Obviously, this
involves a high degree of personal opinion and I freely admit that
I am merely making educated guesses at this stage. The reader
is invited to make his own assessment after reviewing this
article, and the author will be glad to hear from anyone who has
some constructive information to offer.
20
18
V TRANS ITION
16 min trim
14
12
ELEVATOR
10
DEFLECTION
6 de
e' 9 8
6
4 V
2
0
60 80
INDICATED AIRSPEED, V ( , knots
FIG. 10 -FLIGHT TEST DATA FOR LONG-EZ. CFtEF. 2)
54 JUNE 1983
Discussion of Possible Factors
We will discuss the following: 1) airfoil shape and surface skin
conditions, 2) elevator hinge gap and trailing edge shape, 3)
incidence and twist, 4) center of gravity location, and 5) weight.
First, we should consider how close the wing and tail surfaces
can be duplicated by the many different homebuilders, a larger
number of them building their very first airplane. Good workman-
ship is vital in building to a high degree of accuracy and an
excellent finish is always a very good index of the quality of
workmanship. But a smooth and glossy finish and good workman-
ship do not necessarily guarantee that the airfoil itself is made
to the required accuracy. Much can depend on the construction
techniques involved in addition to the skill and experience of the
builder.
Airfoil designers will tell you that departures of only a few
thousandths to hundredths of an inch in critical areas of the airfoil
can alter basic characteristics very markedly. The leading edge
and upper surface are particularly critical. If the construction
techniques do not permit the builder to work to required ac-
curacies in these areas, then inconsistent results may be obtained
even by very careful and experienced builders.
Prior to working with the fiberglass-foam type of construction
myself, I thought that it should be a very accurate way of repro-
ducing a given airfoil surface. Now that I have been involved to
some extent in building several of them, I have changed my
opinion, at least concerning the current homebuilding techniques
I have used or observed.
There are several steps and working conditions in the process
that can influence the final shape. Some of these are 1) copying
template shape, 2) excessive melting due to cutting the cores too
slowly or with the wire too hot, 3) under cutting or scalloping due
to wire lag (wire too slack, wire too cold or cutting speed too fast),
4) wire bowing due to variable density at core joints, 5) foam core
bowing (after wire cutting) due to internal and surface stresses,
6) assembling final structure from many core sections without
accurate jigs, 7) surface irregularities caused by core defects and
cloth texture, overlap and joints.
OFR
D FIXED
max
100 120 140 160 180
 Some of these items are beyond the control of even a very
careful builder. Furthermore, there are no procedures using
templates for checking the final airfoil shape after completion.
The builder has no way of knowing what the exact shape is unless
he goes to a great deal of extra work. But if he does, he has no
way of knowing that the final shape is acceptable.
Based on my own experience and observations, I believe that
deviations of 1/16 to 1/8 inch or more from the design shapes for
both the tail and wing are possible and that deviations of this
size are sufficient to account for some of the extremes in FBC that
have been noted. There is little doubt in my mind that the CON-
STRUCTION TECHNIQUE is responsible for these deviations to
a large extent.
Aside from producing significant differences in the shape of
the airfoil, the fiberglass-foam construction methods also result
in roughness and waviness of the surface skin which requires
extensive filling and sanding to achieve an acceptable condition.
Of the two, WAVINESS probably is the more critical factor from
the aerodynamic standpoint and probably is the more difficult to
detect and eliminate. I know that at least one of the designers
has gone to great lengths to get the builders to pay attention to
the waviness problem, but I expect that there is a wide variation
in these two factors for the final surfaces from one plane to the
next.
Another surface factor to consider is that of the actual SUR-
FACE FINISH. If the surface is covered with a very glossy and
slick finish, the rain will tend to adhere in the form of raised
drops which will cause significant turbulence. On the other hand,
if the finish is dull or satiny, the rain may tend to spread out in
a thin smooth layer with little influence on the airflow. Also, the
quantity of bugs, ice or other materials that adhere to the surface
may depend to a large extent on the type of surface treatment.
Closely related to the airfoil "shape" problem are those of the
ELEVATOR GAP and TRAILING EDGE. The shape and width
of the gap between the elevator and the fixed portion of the tail
has a very strong influence on the flow separation behavior over
the elevator. Consequently, small differences here can cause two
otherwise identical tails to have significant lift and elevator
control power differences. The manner in which the elevator is
mounted with the external hinges does lend itself to possible
variations in the gap, but I really have no feel for how much of
a problem this may be.
The shape of the trailing edge has a very powerful effect on
the hinge moments of the elevator although the lift is not influ-
enced to any appreciable degree. Here again I do not have any
information relative to the variability of these factors in the field,
but I have a feeling that little attention is paid to the trailing
edge shape. As a matter of fact, I believe that some of the early
VariEze airplanes had a rather blunt trailing edge and that this
was later changed to a sharp edge. This certainly could account
for noticeable differences in the stick trim characteristics between
some of the airplanes.
As noted earlier, variations in INCIDENCE and spanwise
TWIST in both the tail and the main wing can be a source of trim
differences from one airplane to another. Furthermore, inasmuch
as LOCATION of the CG has a direct effect on trim of the airplane,
we can see that differences in CG location as well as lifting surface
incidence will lead directly to differences in elevator deflection
required to maintain a given airspeed. Also, differences in
WEIGHT of the airplane will cause the elevator to be trimmed
differently for a given airspeed. Discussions with two of the desig-
ners have indicated that there have been cases where the elevator
deflections required for cruising flight have been down from the
normal settings by several degrees, indicating some significant
and unusual variations in the rigging and loading of the various
airplanes. I strongly suspect that these particular airplanes have
significantly different FBC than those that were rigged and loaded
uniformly.
Discussion of Other Current Tail-First Designs
Now, let's try to relate our information on some of the other
current tail-first designs to our discussions of the VariEze and
Long-EZ. We are going to talk about the Quickie, Q2, Dragonfly
and a new single-place design called the "Retro" by its designer
and builder, Gion Bezzola of Estavazer Le Lac, Switzerland (see
February 1982 SPORT AVIATION). Unfortunately, we have only
limited and very sketchy information on these designs.
While these designs differ considerably from each other and
from the VariEze configuration, they all have heavily loaded front
lifting surfaces which employ the GU 25 airfoil used by the
VariEze or modified versions of it. The first three designs employ
Eppler airfoils for the main wing which I believe is similar to
that used with the Long-EZ. The Retro uses a NACA 74-series
section for the wing. The first three designs also use a plain flap
design for the elevator rather than the slotted flap design
employed by the others.
There are numerous copies of both the Quickie and Q2
airplanes and there are several reported encounters with signifi-
cant pitchdown. As a matter of fact, most all of the reported cases
covered in the previously mentioned magazines have involved
one or the other of these two designs. In reviewing the literature
that Gene Sheehan, current president of Quickie Aircraft Co.,,
very kindly sent me, I found that he and the late Tom Jewett
have devoted a significant amount of effort studying the pitchdown
behavior experienced with their designs. Gene indicated that his
company had provided the builders with considerable information
on the subject warning against flying in rain or taking off with
wet or dirty wing and tail surfaces. Also he mentioned that the
design modification permitting the ailerons to be reflexed to
provide additional pitch control power has proved to be very
effective in minimizing or eliminating the pitchdown behavior.
He also mentioned the design modification developed by Carry
LeGare, a former associate, was also effective and was available
to builders. This modification consists of a small horizontal trim-
ming surface mounted on the vertical tail.
In my recent visit to Mojave, I also visited Gene and saw the
Q2 prototype which has been fitted with the NASA LS(1>-
0417MOD airfoil for the front lifting surface. He reported that
rain has been found to have very little effect on the behavior of
the modified Q2 and that the company plans to make the new
surface available for retrofitting on current Q2 airplanes. He also
said that they would be evaluating this airfoil for the Quickie
also but he was not sure that it would be as effective because of
the lower Reynolds number invovled.
Bob Walters, designer of the Dragonfly, states that there is
only a mild pitchdown with his airplane and claims that it is not
a significant problem. He does caution builders about flying in
rain and warns not to take-off with wet or dirty surfaces. It should
be pointed out that, up until very recently, his airplane has been
the only Dragonfly flying, consequently he does not know yet how
typical the behavior is for the numerous copies that are now
approaching flight status.
One of the first builders to fly his Dragonfly, Terry Nichols,
reported in the recent Dragonfly newsletter that he performed
stalls in and out of rain and noted a 10 mph increase in stall
speed and apparently a more pronounced stall break due to the
rain. This result is consistent with Bob's recent comment that he
found the stall speed of his prototype was increased about 8 to 10
mph. While on my recent trip, I was able to discuss this further
with Terry as well as with Rex Taylor who has taken over the
Dragonfly company. Rex has had similar experiences in rain but
indicated he has not tested the airplane extensively in the rain.
None of these people feel there is any significant problem with
the Dragonfly. Although I was able to fly the prototype Dragonfly
through some extreme maneuvers at low speed with no problem,
I was not able to do this with contaminated surfaces and, therefore,
cannot verify their opinions.
Examination of the Dragonfly templates given in the plans
revealed that the tail airfoil is different from the standard GU
25 airfoil in that it is slightly thinner and the maximum thickness
appears to be moved slightly forward. When I asked Bob about
this, he stated that he was concerned about the abrupt contour
change of the GU 25 section and made the modification to help
eliminate the separation tendencies encountered with the VariEze
tail. (He is one of the early builders of a VariEze.) He did not
explain whether this was merely to reduce drag for better cruise
performance or to minimize the effects of rain, but regardless of
which was his intention, it appears that his modification to the
airfoil may have been effective to some degree in alleviating FBC
characteristics which otherwise might have been more evident.
It is pertinent to note here that an airfoil developed indepen-
dently for another application by airfoil designer John Roncz,
whom I have consulted, matches closely the contours of the
Dragonfly airfoil. John's study shows that his airfoil is not as
sensitive to flow separation problems as the original GU 25 sec-
tion. Thus, since the two airfoils appear to be quite similar, it is
probable that the Dragonfly airfoil truly is effective in minimizing
the pitchdown problem as Bob's results have indicated. But until
more Dragonflys have been test flown, this supposition will not
have been proven.
SPORT AVIATION 55
 DISTANCE

REFERENCE
THICKNESS LAMINAR

VELOCITY f

SKETCH A SKETCH B

TRANSITION

SKETCH C

SKETCH D SEPARATION

56 JUNE 1983
 On a recent personal trip to Switzerland, I was fortunate to
have the opportunity to talk with Gion Bezzola and observe him
flying his prototype version of the Retro. He stated that it is
subject to pitchdown much the same as the VariEze but, unfortu-
nately, we did not have time to discuss the subject in depth. He
is a pilot for the Swiss Air Force and has many hours in numerous
airplanes of all types, including the VariEze. His views on the
factors involved in the pitchdown behavior were consistent with
those I have expressed in this article.
Let's summarize our discussion at this point by observing that
we have covered a total of six different designs and have found
that each does demonstrate some form of FBC but the type and
severity are not necessarily the same for all designs. Certainly,
there are basic design differences between the various designs
that are important and we should not expect that the behavior
of all would be necessarily the same.
I would like to point out that most of the FBC encounters that
I have heard about for any of these designs have been isolated
incidents with the airplane flying into rain while in NORMAL
CRUISING flight and were NOT SPECIFIC TEST flights designed
to isolate and identify the behavior. In some cases, these encoun-
ters have been fairly mild and the persons reporting these events
seem to be left with the impression that the phenomenon is of
little or no concern. Inasmuch as FBC may be much more critical
for low speed flight conditions, there is the POSSIBILITY that
some airplanes that have been judged as having no problem will,
in fact, demonstrate undesirable or unacceptable behavior.
The "bottom line" for this discussion is that, regardless of the
specific design, the builder or pilot must be aware of the POSSI-
BILITY that his particular airplane may have some unusual
characteristics. Therefore, the only way to know for sure is to
conduct proper flight test with his own airplane.
Discussion On Potential Dangerous Behavior
We have been discussing at great lengths "FBC", "potential
problems", and "undesirable or unacceptable behavior". But what
do we mean when we use these words when applied to airplanes?
Do we mean that their behavior is dangerous, and what is it that
actually makes it dangerous?
To answer these questions, let's first define "dangerous be-
havior" as being "motions of the airplane, either controlled or
uncontrolled, that expose the occupants to the threat of immediate
injury or loss of life". Next, "unacceptable behavior" will be defined
as "motions that require extraordinary or exceptional pilot skill
for safe controlled flight". Finally, we will define "undesirable
behavior" as "motions that require normal pilot skill but impose
an extra or disconcerting workload".
I prefer not to use the term "dangerous" to describe the be-
havior of an airplane because it is imprecise and can be misun-
derstood by many people. For instance, the act of getting out of
bed is "dangerous" if it results in falling and breaking your leg.
Of course, many people also consider that flying in any airplane
is "dangerous" but many others do not. Actually, it is more approp-
riate to use "dangerous" to describe the total situation; that is,
the airplane PLUS the specific flight conditions or environment.
By these definitions, then, we can say that, if the behavior of
an airplane is judged to be "unacceptable", it may or may not be
dangerous because the skill level of the pilot in command must
be taken into account. At this point, we must be a little bit careful
about assuming what the term "pilot skill" actually means. Many
pilots consider themselves highly skilled because they have sev-
eral thousand hours in many different type airplanes, and they
certainly are justified to do so. However, in the case of flying an
airplane that is not familiar to them and that has an unusual
behavior under some flight condition, some of these pilots may
not be able to cope because they may not understand what is
happening or the situation does not permit them the time to "feel
out" the problem. If they were provided the information about
the nature of the problem beforehand, then it is highly likely that
all of them would be able to cope. Thus, we can see the importance
of being ADEQUATELY INFORMED, as well as SKILLED, in
cases of dealing with airplanes having UNUSUAL CHARAC-
TERISTICS.
There should be little confusion in dealing with the term
"undesirable". You can consider it as referring to nuisance traits.
There are a number of airplanes that have one or more characteris-
tics that can be termed "undesirable" yet the airplanes are consi-
dered acceptable on the basis of their overall behavior.
The process of evaluating the acceptable behavior of a
homebuilt airplane is strictly a qualitative process utilizing the
judgment of one or more knowledgeable and experienced pilots.
Strictly speaking there are no firm quantitative parameters that
must be met, however, the pilot should make his judgment of FBC
based on the extent that the "numbers" are changed for the
following items: 1) take-off distance and speed, 2) rate of climb
following take-off, 3) landing speed and distance, 4) stick force
and trim travel, and 5) maneuvers at take-off and approach speeds..
Closing Remarks
The discussion covered in this article leads to the following
statements:
1) FBC is a premature-stall phenomenon associated with tail-
first airplanes in which a significant portion of the weight is
carried by the two lifting surfaces and the elevator is located on
the forward surface. Because thick laminar-flow airfoil sections
such as the GU 25 section, which are quite sensitive to surface
roughness or contamination have been used for the forward tail
surface, the tail can have a major influence on the behavior.
However, there are a number of aerodynamic and physical factors
which influence the nature of this phenomenon and these factors
can vary significantly from one copy to the next of a given design.
Use of other airfoils less sensitive to the effects of contamination
should minimize or eliminate this behavior.
2) Builders should be particularly aware of the critical nature
of the various factors involved and are cautioned to follow the
designers instructions and design details as closely as possible.
They should avoid making any changes in the airfoil shape or
control surface configuration without thorough knowledge of the
influence of these changes on the flight behavior of their airplane.
Such changes may cause the airplane to fly completely different
from the original design with severe degradation in performance,
flight behavior and safety.
3) FBC appears to be more critical for low speed flight condi-
tions than for cruise and high speed because of loss of pitch control
power and lifting capability along with increased drag. Maneuv-
ering at low speed may aggravate the behavior. Pilot control
inputs in response to the FBC encounter will depend on the type
of behavior. Pilots who are unfamiliar with this phenomenon may
not be able to recognize aggravated behavior and may apply wrong
recovery inputs.
4) Although this phenomenon is not necessarily a serious
problem for a particular design, FBC of each copy should be
evaluated completely with flight tests in much the same manner
as stalls and other flight behavior. These tests should be made
during the initial airworthiness fly-off period required for certifi-
cation of the airplane in the experimental category.
5) Care should be exercised by the pilot when flying a tail-first
airplane for the first time and he should check with others who
may have flown it previously to learn about its specific behavior.
He should be aware of the potential for encountering some unusual
behavior and the proper technique for recovering.
The statements made here and throughout this article have
been based on an analysis of a number of basic aerodynamic facts
and well established principles of flight dynamics and pilot be-
havior, as well as a very limited amount of experimental wind
tunnel and flight test data. However, there are areas of personal
judgment and speculation, and consequently, these statements
should not be treated as firm conclusions until a much broader
base of experimental data can be gathered and a more thorough
analysis made.
Next month we will conclude with a number of suggestions
and recommendations pertaining to flight testing and operation
of tail-first airplanes.
References
1. Yip, Long P. and Coy, Paul F.: Wind-Tunnel Investigation
of a Full-Scale Canard-Configured General Aviation Aircraft.
13th ICAS Congress; AIAA Aircraft Systems and Technology Con-
ference, Seattle, Washington, Aug. 22-27, 1982. ICAS Paper
Number 82-6.8.2.
2. Holmes, Dr. B. J.., Obara, C. J.: Observations and Implica-
tions of Natural Flow on Practical Airplane Surfaces. 13th ICAS
Congress—AIAA Aircraft Systems and Technology Conference,
Seattle, Washington. August 22-27, 1982. ICAS Paper Number
82-5.1.1.
SPORT AVIATION 57
 By Don Hewes (EAA 32101)
12 Meadow Drive
Newport News, VA 23606
_L HIS IS THE final installment of a three-part article
on the subject dealing with the responses of tail-first
airplanes to rain, snow, bugs or whatever. The term "Flight
Behavior Change", or "FBC" for short, has been coined to
refer to this type behavior. This behavior results primarily
from changes in the aerodynamic characteristics of the
lifting surfaces. This part covers several recommendations
and suggestions for people who are designing, building or
flying this type airplane.
Recommendations and Suggestions
The keyword for conducting FBC tests, as in the case
of any flight testing, is BE PREPARED. Initial flight
testing of any homebuilt airplane, even if it is the 500th
copy of a well proven design, should always be treated as
a truly experimental flight test operation with all approp-
riate precautions taken. After all, what is on the sign that
you had to place on the door? If you don't remember, it is
spelled E-X-P-E-R-I-M-E-N-T-A-L.
It is suggested that the critical portions of the tests be
delayed until all others are completed. However, you can
perform the preliminary portions of the tests while doing
the other normal tests but be sure that the lifting surfaces
are dry and clean and avoid flying in the rain. Most of the
following tests should be done using a mid-location for the
CG to begin with and then repeated with the CG moved
progressively forward and rearward. The test pilot may
elect to eliminate some of the intermediate steps depending
on the observed behavior from the previous tests.
Although there are many tail-first airplanes currently
flying which show no significant problems when they en-
counter rain, bugs or whatever, there are enough cases of
FBC problems to indicate that caution should be exercised
when flying an airplane of this type with unknown charac-
teristics. Because of the many variables associated with
current techniques used in constructing homebuilt
fiberglass-foam airplanes, I believe that the only way a
builder of a tail-first airplane can be certain of the
airplane's flight behavior with contaminated surfaces is
to conduct flight tests designed specifically to evaluate this
condition. I believe that such testing is in keeping with
the builder's responsibility for the airworthiness of his
airplane. Furthermore, it is a matter of the builder being
fair not only with himself but his family and anyone who
rides in or flies his airplane that this be done.
This recommendation applies to any canard or tandem
wing airplane whether it be the first copy of a new design
or the umpteenth copy of a proven design. In making the
decision to conduct the flight tests, it is recommended that
the builder contact the designer to discuss the tests and
obtain his advice. The builder should be familiar with
conducting such experimental test flights and have some
recent flight time. As is true for initial flight testing of
any homebuilt airplane, if the builder does not fit the role
of test pilot, he should find some qualified person to do the
flying for him.
It is suggested that the builder prepare a flight report
of the tests and submit them to the designer. The report
should cover the effects of contamination on at least the
following items: 1) take-off distance, 2) rate of climb follow-
ing take-off, 3) landing speed and distance, 4) stick force
and trim control travel, and 5) maneuvers at approach
speed. Other factors such as elevator deflections and angle
of attack changes should also be included. The designer
can then correlate this information with his own tests and
those of the other builders as a way of isolating those
factors which are most important in affecting the FBC.
Included in the builder's report on an airplane with a
significant FBC problem should be detailed measurements
of the various critical parts of the airplane.
Concerning the accuracy required to provide repeatable
aerodynamic characteristics for these airplanes, it is
suggested that designers 1) evaluate the need for greater
accuracy, and 2) provide information on how to achieve
the greater accuracy, if it is required, taking into account
the wide spectrum of builder skill involved in the current
homebuilding movement. Incorporation of final contour
templates and alignment jigs should be considered.
In the following sections, a series of flight tests to
evaluate FBC is suggested for use in lieu of any other
specific information supplied by the designer. The actual
procedures will need to be developed by the builder and
pilot following these suggestions. Also, suggestions are
made regarding pilot preparedness and possible cures for
severe FBC problems.
SPORT AVIATION 61
 Flight Testing
Before commencing these tests, the airplane should be
equipped with accurate airspeed and rate of climb indi-
cators and inflight calibrations of the airspeed installation
should be made to insure reliable airspeed measurements
within a couple MPH or better. An outside air temperature
indicator should be available for airspeed corrections. Re-
member that these measurements need to be accurate so
that reasonable comparisons can be made of other mea-
sured quantities obtained from various different airplanes
using airspeed as the basis for comparison. If airspeed is
in error, then the comparisons will not be reliable. Note
that airspeed probes located in different positions of the
airplane may produce significantly different readings be-
cause of local pressure differences (position error).
An angle of attack indicator will be quite useful but is
not an absolute necessity. A relatively simple vane
mounted on a boom extending about a foot or two forward
from the front surface near the tip can be used but it must
be calibrated to account for flow upwash. To do this, fly
the airplane at constant altitude for a series of speeds over
the speed range and compare the vane reading with an
inclinometer mounted in the cockpit. You will be dealing
with only a fairly small angular range of about 15° and
you should obtain each reading with an accuracy of about
1
A° or better. You can use a small electrical potentiometer
attached to the vane and a meter hooked up in simple
Wheatstone- bridge circuit to obtain the vane readings.
Because the existence of a laminar boundary layer is
the key to the FBC phenomenon, it is important to deter-
mine the amount of laminar flow that exists on your
particular airplane for the various flight conditions. There-
fore, it is recommended that the first test should be one
to obtain a visual indication of the boundary layer flow
conditions on the wing and tail surfaces. This can be done
with either of two fairly simple techniques, the first is the
one described in Reference 3 using sublimating chemicals.
This has been used very successfully by NASA and is
highly recommended.
The second technique is similar but uses plain motor
oil in place of the chemicals. It has been used extensively
in wind tunnels but I have not had any personal experience
with it. Also, I don't have any convenient reference for the
steps involved, so a bit of experimenting will be involved.
You should be able to find a couple quarts of old used motor
oil that are heavily loaded with soot so that the oil is very
black. Wipe this uniformly over the lifting surfaces to
provide a thin layer of oil which will tend to migrate to
the region just aft of the TRANSITION POINT. Be sure
that the oil does not tend to form drops that linger other-
wise you are creating the same effect as rain or bugs. You
may have to adjust the viscosity of the oil by thinning with
kerosene or thickening with heavier weight oil to get the
proper effect. You will probably need someone to help
observe the flow patterns which will undoubtedly change
with the different flight conditions.
You should expect to see flow transition point some-
where near the mid-chord position on the tail and probably
further forward on the wing. If this test shows that the
transition point is near the leading edge, then there is
relatively little laminar flow and the subsequent tests will
probably show only a mild FBC if any. On the other hand,
if the boundary layer is laminar near or past the mid-chord
position, it is possible the behavior will be much more
evident. It should be necessary to conduct this test for only
one loading condition but at least three speeds from land-
ing to cruise conditions should be covered. Remove the
flow visualization material at end of test.
During this test, observe the position of the elevator
required to maintain straight and level flight for a given
62 JULY 1983
loading condition. Normally the elevator should be very
close to zero deflection or whatever was specified by the
designer. If there is greater than a couple degrees from
the desired setting, carefully inspect the airplane for im-
proper rigging or some of the other factors covered in the
previous sections.
Following this test, conduct a series of baseline data
tests to measure take-off speed and distance as well as the
rates of climb at take-off power in the range from take-off
speed to somewhat greater than that for maximum rate
of climb using increments of about 5 mph or so. The mea-
surements should be taken as you climb through the same
altitude for each different speed so a series of saw-tooth
climbs and descents will have to be made. If you wish, at
the same time you can conduct idle-power tests which
should also be made to measure the rates of descent for
the same speed range. (You may have to be concerned with
excessive cooling and heating cycles involved.) Be sure
that you have a well stabilized climb or descent established
before reaching the specific altitude for taking the mea-
surement. You will probably need several hundred feet to
do so. It takes practice . . . and a passenger to take the
readings is very handy. A small hand held tape recorder
is also useful in place of the passenger. Note touchdown
speed and landing distance.
The next step is to make a complete elevator vs.
airspeed calibration (similar to that shown in Figures 9
and 10) for each of the loading conditions at power required
for straight and level flight as part of the baseline data
for the subsequent special tests. All that is required is a
scale on the elevator control calibrated in terms of elevator
position and on the trim control calibrated in terms of any
convenient scale appropriate for the type of control handle
used. If the trim control is a crank type, then you will need
to keep track of the number of turns. The elevator scale
should be accurate to within about one-quarter of a degree
and should be read to at least one-half a degree. The trim
system scale should be accurate to about 1 or 2 percent of
the full travel. It is recommended that all these tests be
flown at safe altitude of at least three thousand feet above
the local terrain.
The next step is to repeat the last step taking data for
coordinated banked turns of 30 and 60 degrees.
Then the following step is to perform a series of banked
coordinated turns at the normal approach and touchdown
speeds using slow and then rapid control inputs. Do this
with power to maintain essentially constant altitude and
then with normal reduced power for landing. Start with
shallow turns and observe any increased tendency to pitch
down or up. Carefully note any additional aileron/rudder
deflections required to correct for possible roll/yaw tenden-
cies caused by partial flow separation on only one side of
the tail or wing. If a pitch break occurs, hold controls
steady if possible to observe the motions of the airplane.
Note rates of descent.
Attempt to recover by pulling further aft on the control.
This may result in an aggravated FBC with the airspeed
increasing significantly. In this case, you may need to
PUSH THE CONTROL FORWARD as you would in the
case of the stall of a conventional airplane. .'Remember
that the tail is in a stalled condition with the elevator
deflected downward. Raising the elevator will allow the
tail to become unstalled.) Note altitude lost in recovering.
Increase the bank angle in small increments and ob-
serve any further tendencies for FBC, roll or yaw. Note
the elevator deflections and airspeed at which they occur.
Bank angles in excess of the limits normally observed need
not be reached.
CAUTION: The objective of the following steps is to
fly the airplane with an artificially induced turbulent
boundary layer on portions of the tail so as to simulate
the effects of contamination. These steps pose some addi-

ELEVATOR
DEFLECTION
DE6.
V UAX.
•0 100 110 140
INDICATEDAinSPfCO, KNOTS
FIG. 9 -FLIGHT TEST DATA FOR VARIE2E.
tional hazard and should not be performed by anyone who
is not fully qualified and prepared to handle the airplane
under conditions requiring emergency actions.
When you are ready to start the final series of tests,
carefully clean off the first 3 inches of the WING and TAIL
leading edges using a cleaning agent to remove any traces
of dust or oil so that a strip of masking tape will stay
firmly attached in flight. Apply a double thickness strip
(about .008 to .010 in.) of'/»to 3A inch masking tape about
2 inches from the leading edge, both top and bottom,
starting inboard and extending out to 1A the span of each
tail panel. Be sure that the tape used has very good adhe-
sive qualities and press it firmly onto the surface. It is
necessary that the tape be applied in short sections of about
12 inches each so as to eliminate the possibility of one
loose end causing the whole length to peel off. Tape is
applied inboard only for the first flight to minimize the
possibility of large rolling moments caused by unsymmet-
rical separation, and to approach the most severe condition
(full span trip) in a careful manner.
With the tape in place, conduct a series of high speed
taxi runs checking to see that there is sufficient elevator
power to lift off within the first quarter of the runway.
Use the mid CG loading condition for these tests. If it is
determined that a satisfactory liftoff can be made without
reaching excessive airspeeds, apply a small amount of the
boundary layer flow visualization material used previously
so as to check to see that the tape is tripping the flow.
Place it in a location where you can easily see it, and then
proceed with the take-off. Carefully note and record take-
off distance and airspeed. If the flow appears not to be
tripped, land and add another layer of tape. Otherwise,
proceed with repeating the previous rate of climb, rate of
descent and elevator vs. airspeed tests for comparison with
the initial data. Make a careful note of the minimum trim
speed of the airplane for the landing condition. Then repeat
the coordinated-turn maneuvers. Note any unusual
characteristics that may be associated with the tripped
flow condition. If any unsatisfactory or unsafe effects are
noted, terminate the testing immediately.
When landing, make only gradual turns and maintain
an approach speed about 1.3 times the noted minimum
trim speed. Note and record touchdown speed and landing
distance. Compare the data and check to see that the
elevator deflections required with the tripped flow condi-
tion are not excessive. There should be only very small
changes from the original data of 1 or 2 degrees at the
most.
If the results are judged to be acceptable, add more
tape span wise and extend it to the Vz-span location. Repeat
the last step checking to see that the elevator deflections
and airplane flight behavior are still within acceptable
limits.
If the incremental changes experienced with the two
different lengths of tape are insignificant, then you can
proceed repeating the tests with the tape applied full span.
Otherwise, proceed with smaller increments until the re-
sults indicate that you should proceed no further.
Repeat these tests with the CG moved to the mid-point
and then the forward locations. If the full-aft limit for the
CG was not tested previously, it should be done also unless
prior tests indicate otherwise. Be aware that these tests
will probably be more critical so proceed with caution.
20
18
16 min trim TRANSITION
OFREE
14 D FIXED
12
ELEVATOR
10
DEFLECTION
6 deq
60 80 100 120 140 160 180
INDICATED AIRSPEED, V ( . knots
FIG. 10 -FLIGHT TEST DATA FOP LONG-EZ Cfi£F. 2)
Having performed all of these steps, you should have
fairly well defined the operating characteristics of your
airplane FOR THE MOST SEVERE CASE OF RAIN OR
BUGS. If you were unable to complete the full series, then
you know that some operational limitations should be
placed on the airplane for conditions where the airplane
might become contaminated.
Be sure to remove the masking tape from the surfaces
after a few days of testing to avoid possible damage to your
finish due to the "curing" of the adhesive over a longer
period of time.
Pilot Preparedness
If you are flying a tail-first airplane that has not been
thoroughly tested for its FBC, you should be aware that
you may encounter a FBC problem unexpectedly and you
should be prepared to take the proper corrective action
immediately. Do not attempt a flight if rain or snow are
threatening or if the field is heavily infested with flying
bugs. If possible, load the airplane so that the CG is in the
mid to aft portion of design range.
Inspect the lifting surfaces and remove any surface
contamination that could cause flow turbulence. Inspect
the elevator travel for proper down travel limits. The
travel stop should be positive with no "spongy" tendencies.
Do not take-off from a field with long grass or weeds
which can strike the leading edge. On take-off, check to
see that excessive speed is not required to reach liftoff.
Abort the take-off if in doubt. If there is sudden power
loss, avoid abrupt elevator inputs and banked turns.
SPORT AVIATION 63
 If rain, drizzle, mist or bugs are encountered during
flight, avoid slow flight and steeply banked turns. Make
a SHALLOW STRAIGHT-IN approach with airspeed 10
to 15 knots higher than normal. Be prepared to ADD
POWER if the plane suddenly starts to pitchdown and pick
up speed. Avoid making abrupt aft stick inputs and allow
speed to increase significantly before attempting to apply
any aft stick. Allow for a longer than normal landing
runout. In the event of a go around, remember that the
airplane has higher drag and lower lift than normal and
will not climb as rapidly as normal. Expect a shallow
climbout and avoid any abrupt turns.
Curing Severe FBC Problems
Finally, we will address the question of what to do to
the airplane if it demonstrates UNACCEPTABLE be-
havior.
The first thing to do is review all information supplied
by the designer (owner's manual, newsletters, etc.) and
then contact him if you do not find an obvious source of
the problem. If this is an original design, review the earlier
discussions in this article.
Check for misalignment. Check the tail for insufficient
incidence and the wing for excessive incidence. (Both will
cause excessive down elevator settings.) Shim the surfaces
or make new attachment fittings.
Carefully check the airfoil shapes using external
templates to see that they conform to the design airfoils.
Unless the designer can provide specific data for the de-
sired contours of the airfoil, you will have to develop them
from the normal construction templates. In this case, you
will have to make allowances for the added thicknesses
of fiberglass, resin and surface filler.
An alternate method to making templates from the
drawings is to make a series of exact half-templates (upper
and lower) of the actual surface contour. These are then
compared with a drawing of the desired airfoil. A simple
procedure is to mask the chordwise section of the upper
surface to be checked with a narrow strip of Saran Wrap
or wax paper and then lay down a thin strip of "Bondo"
plastic body filler about Vz inch wide. Before the filler
hardens, press in a piece of plywood or hardboard previ-
ously rough cut to the approximate contour of the upper
surface. The piece should extend below the upper surface
at the leading and trailing edges. After the plastic hardens,
carefully mark on the template the position of the trailing
edge and a reference mark placed on the leading edge of
the surface. Repeat the process for the bottom surface and
then match the two parts of the template using the leading
and trailing edge marks on the two parts. This process is
quite easy and fairly quick but requires rework of the
template whenever the surface is reworked.
Some contour errors can be corrected by filling with
microballoon slurry and refinishing. Others may require
building a complete new surface.
If possible, the CG forward limit could be set further
aft so as to avoid the higher loading of the tail.
A possible redesign solution is an aileron reflex
mechanism such as the system developed for the Quickie
airplanes. Also, a small moveable horizontal surface lo-
cated at the aft end of the fuselage to provide an inflight
adjustable pitch trim moment could be installed in some
cases. Perhaps the most drastic but most satisfactory solu-
tion would be to build a new tail surface with an airfoil
less susceptible to the flow separation problem. Unfortu-
nately, there is relatively little data available on which
to base a decision for selecting an alternate airfoil section.
However, some of the latest airfoil computer design
64 JULY 1983
techniques now offer some hope for obtaining a suitable
section. These steps represent major redesign effort and
should not be taken unless all else fails, and then should
be taken only after consultation with the designer.
Of course, any modifications to the airplane should be
checked with the FAA and thoroughly flight tested for all
flight conditions.
Closing Comments
We have specifically aimed this article at the problem
of a more or less symmetrical stalling phenomenon in
which there are no significant rolling or yawing moments
present. However, it is quite possible that an unsymmetri-
cal condition of the airplane exists so that the stall itself
will be unsymmetrical. The pilot, therefore, should also
think in terms of the potential for a ROLLOFF or SLEW-
ING behavior associated with the FBC.
This article has been presented to the reader for the
purpose of exchanging information. Because of the highly
experimental nature of both the information of this article
and the flight activity associated with homebuilt airplanes,
the author cannot assume responsibility for actions taken
as the result of using this information, the suggestions or
the recommendations presented herein.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank all of the following persons for
their help in obtaining some of the information and data
presented herein, and some of them for the advise and
comments pertaining to this presentation:
Dr. Bruce Holmes (Flight Research Engineer), Joseph
L. Johnson (Head, Dynamic Stability Branch — full scale
wind tunnel), Long Yip (Wind Tunnel Research Engineer)
and Dan Somers (Airfoil Research Engineer), all of NASA's
Langley Research Center. Also John Roncz (Airfoil De-
signer), 1510 E. Colfax Ave., South Bend, IN; Burt Rutan
(President, Rutan Aircraft Factory); Gene Sheehan (Pres-
ident, Quickie Aircraft Co.); Bob Walters (Dragonfly De-
signer) and Rex Taylor (Viking Aircraft Ltd.).
This acknowledgement should not necessarily be con-
strued as representing an endorsement on the part of any
one of the individuals or organizations mentioned.
References
1. Yip, Long P. and Coy, Paul F.: Wind-Tunnel Investi-
gation of a Full-Scale Canard-Configured General
Aviation Aircraft. 13th ICAS Congress/AIAA Air-
craft Systems and Technology Conference, Seattle,
Washington, Aug. 22-27, 1982. ICAS Paper Number
82-6.8.2.
2. Holmes, Dr. B. J., Obara, C. J.: Observations and Im-
plications of Natural Flow on Practical Airplane Sur-
faces. 13th ICAS Congress/AIAA Aircraft Systems
and Technology Conference, Seattle, Washington.
Aug. 22-27, 1982. ICAS Paper Number 82-5.1.1.
3. Holmes, Dr. B. J., Croom, C. C., Obara, C. J.: Sub-
limating Chemical Method for Detecting Laminar
Boundary-Layer Transition. Handout available from
Dr. Holmes, Mail Stop 286, Langley Research Center,
Hampton, VA 23665.