Ailerions as elevator question

[Engine]

This is likely a stupid question, but I'm a stupid guy, so it all comes together.  Or something.

I remembered something in a documentary on various flying wings that got me wondering.  In place of elevators, flying wing designs have "elevons", in which the ailerons simply both pitch up or down at the same time.  Would this be possible to do with the WW2 planes we have in AH?  Seems like if you lose an elevator, it would make sense to have some control which allows ailerons to both pitch up or down at once.  Was there one?

[bunch]

Me-163 had the system you described (no  H-stabilizer, elevators controled pitch)...just from guessing, it seems to me that on a convention planform (straight wing) WW2 type fighter the effect of lowering both ailerons would be a lot more like lowering flaps than like moving the elevators, but this is just intuition...similar question:  Why no V-tail WW2 fighters?  seems they would give a better 6:00 view & be less prone to having the wings blanket airflow to the empanage

[bozon]

The flaps basicaly function the same as the ailrons - they add/reduce the lift of the wing by changing the angle of attack.

They cannot replace the elevators on a plane not designed for it - the elevators job is to set the angle of attack of the main wing.

some planes do not have ailrons, such as the delta wing design that was popular in the 60s and most famous example of it is the french Mirage series.



Bozon

[Straiga]

some planes do not have ailrons, such as the delta wing design that was popular in the 60s and most famous example of it is the french Mirage series.

The marage does have airlerons they are combine with a augmentaition mixer which provides both ailerons and elevators (elevons) control. Also flaps are included in the mix too (Flaperons). Its a good picture too showing elevons and flaperons

In the F-14 we had the augmentaition computer that would mix spoilers, differential elevators and rudder to produces a roll. Or with the wing swepted differential elevator and rudder was more prevalent to produce a roll. The computer desided.

In a conventional airplane like a WWII fighter the elevators provide pitch and are place further away from the center of pressure for more leverage or fulcrum. The main wing produces lift upward while the horizontal stabilizer produces lift downward. this provides the balance to the airframe. The CG in most cases is forward of the center of pressure of the main wing.
 
I also posted a thread in aircraft and vehicles (for Real Pilots) that might help explain some things.

Later Straiga

[Meyer]

Originally posted by bunch
  Why no V-tail WW2 fighters?    

: http://www.messerschmitt-bf109.de/php-bf109v/v48/erprobung-v48.php

That's why, at least with the Bf109

[Straiga]

Its all german to me. Hey speak english.

[Engine]

So to clarify, having both ailerons pitch down on a conventional WW2 aircraft like a Spitfire would produce lift, rather than a chance in the AoA, is that right?

I kinda wish I could try it out and see firsthand what would happen.  Bet I'd stall out.

[Straiga]

Engine,
The problem with the ailerons both moving in the same direction would not produces any pitch because the ailerons are close to the cg and would not provide any pitch they are in the roll axes.  If you were eye level to the wing tip, and looking at the wing tip amagine a line going through to the oposite wing tip with the CG half way between the two. There is no leverage about the laterial or pitch axes. Meaning the ailerons dont sit in the pitch axes. Now if you look back at the tail its about the same distance from the CG away as the ailerons but the tail is in the pitch axes and has leverage to change pitch.

http://www.onlineaviation.org/My%20Documents/aeropage.htm

Straiga

[Schutt]

V Tail

The document says worse take off behavior, not sufficiant stability around the axis, no improovement in acrobatic flight but problems with less stability, 2.5 km/h more speed, probably more in production version.

Looking at i think its not a in deep research since it does not take into account that the V tail could be bigger with the same drag as the normal tail. It does not test if the behaviour is more responsive with a bigger V tail, or modifies the v-tail design.

Maybe the worse take off behaviour and less stability is enogh to rule the design out, doesnt give a V tail increased drag in maneuvers since it will produce aditional forces that nullify each other but increase drag?

[Straiga]

The Problem I see with a V trail is the Dihedrail. If the Vtail were inverted it would be more stable.

Flying the V tail Bonaza in cross winds is a very difficult airplane to land. The tail section yaws side to side with little or no control over this.

The preditor drone has the V Tail inverted and I here it is a stable platform.

[rshubert]

Originally posted by Straiga
The Problem I see with a V trail is the Dihedrail. If the Vtail were inverted it would be more stable.

Flying the V tail Bonaza in cross winds is a very difficult airplane to land. The tail section yaws side to side with little or no control over this.

The preditor drone has the V Tail inverted and I here it is a stable platform.

I've been thinking about an old V-tail that's for sale around here.  It has the fuselage strake on it, that's uspposed to help with the yaw instability.  Did the one you flew have the strake?

[Straiga]

No it didnt. The strack is for towning down the yaw moment but not much. Alot of T tails aslo have stracks on the bottom of the fuselage for yaw stabilty.

Straiga