Thanks Rick,
That is exactly how the ULF-1 works. The only difference is the ULF-1 does not have the mixer or flaps but it does have very large ailerons the deflect only slightly up and most down. 10 degrees up if I recall.
I guess what I am thinking since I knew the ULF was similar was the mechanical advantages he might have designed into the linkages. I think it would be worth an analytical comparison.
Dieter Reich was the chief engineer on the F14. Of course Irv Culver worked at the skunk works so...
We have been given a gift by both of these men perhaps most do not understand.
Phil I just saw your post come in in so this is a reply to you as well.
btw the ULF-1 control belcrank y thing would be right at your back which I think is similar to CD.
I have the plans for both. Maybe I could post the scanned drawing of this part of the design. You can still buy the drawings off of Dieter. I would if for nothing else just to have as a piece of history.
--- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., Rick Mullins wrote:
>
> The CD has a mixer that looks like an upside down triangle with the control rods connected to the upper corners and the pivot at the bottom corner. When the stick is moved one corner of the triangle moves down, the other moves mostly sideways. The result is the flapperon on the side you are turning toward has most of the movement. The other flapperon moves much less in the down direction. I believe this is to minimize adverse yaw. Pulling up on the two corners with the pivot at the bottom makes for a self centering arrangement.This is what happens with negative flaps and the air pressure is pulling both rods up. When positive flaps are applied the air pressure pushs the control rods down. As the triangle moves, the rod going down will try to keep pushing the triangle that way. Because the other rod is moving sideways it is pushing toward the pivot at the bottom and doesn't have as much effect. So more flaps = more pressure you have to contend
> with.
> Â
> Hopefully I explained this in a way that makes sense. It would be interesting to know how other gliders deal with adverse yaw in their control systems
