Frans,
Looks nice, what if you get a flat tire, any risk it may keep the wheel from
turning?
Not sure if that would make a difference or not.....just thinking aloud.
Brds, Alex kit529
Enviado via iPhone
Em 19/08/2012, s 10:45, Frans Veldman <frans@privatepilots.nl> escreveu:
> On 08/12/2012 07:24 PM, Bud Yerly wrote:
>> Frans,
>> I'll look for some pictures. I don't have them at the home office today.
>
> The reason I was asking is that I'm in the process of making some improved
> wheel
fairings. It would be nice to share some ideas to the benefit of all of us,
which is the purpose of this forum.
>
> Well, I have some ideas to share. I started with the nose wheel fairing
> because
there is only one of it so I only have to make one test sample, and I disliked
the original nose wheel fairing more than the main wheel fairings.
>
> To improve on something, one first has to identify the shortcomings. For me,
the shortcomings of the original fairing are:
>
> 1) Poor fit. We all experienced that the thing was impossible to get
> symmetric.
(I have been told that the company now corrected this error but that didn't
solve my problem with the already bought fairing).
> 2) It is wider than necessary. Apart from the obvious aerodynamic
> disadvantage,
the extra width also implies that the fairing has to bend in sharply at the
underside to meet up with the smaller wheel. This bend further creates
interference
drag, and it increases vulnerability to objects on the ground. Ideally,
the fairing's bottom should not be wider than the track of the wheel.
> 3) Too weak. Partly as a result of the width, but also due to the material
> itself.
> 4) The vertical division into two halves. These halves do not match well
> together,
they meet at an angle and often bulge out, disrupting the airflow up front
and negating the main purpose of the rest of the fairing behind it.
> 5) The clutter caused by all the fasteners, all on a separate height. Add a
> hole
at the axle for a tow bar, and there are 5 levels (on each side!) where the
airflow gets disrupted.
> 6) Too small in height. I would like to hide more of the wheel, and I also
> would
like to fair in my 3cm shaft extension. (This mod was necessary to allow a
larger diameter prop and still maintain enough ground clearance).
> 7) Too short. The length might be theoretically right, but if the fairing is
not aligned perfectly with the airflow it should be longer to allow a shallow
decline of the "downwind" side of the fairing to keep the airflow attached. And
the fairing is likely not aligned perfectly, due to the proximity of the prop,
and it is also quite possible that during take off the nose wheel turns a bit
to a side while leaving the ground, especially while taking of in a cross wind.
>
> How did I improve on all this?
> 1) A key decision was to make the fairing from aramide (kevlar) instead of
> glass.
Aramide has less tensile strength than glass or carbon, but it won't crack
and it is highly resistant to impact forces. If it is literally(!) bullet proof,
it should also cope well with rocks and bumps. The downside is that the material
is hard to handle, you can forget about using normal scissors and knifes.
We made part of a test fairing with two layups of aramide and had great fun
trying to destroy it once it was cured. We jumped on it so it pancaked, but
it just popped back into shape after we left it, without any damage. We actually
folded it, the epoxy itself cracked a bit but not a single strand broke and
it folded right back into its original shape (but of course this time with a
visible fold line). If I were living in the US I would probably also have fired
some bullets at it just for laughs. This material allowed me to make a much
deeper fairing and still don't have to worry about soft fields and hitting some
rocks, while keeping the weight low at the same time. On the final fairing we
tested it by taking the wheel off the ground, putting obstacles below the
fairing
and putting the aircraft on its own weight again, so that the entire weight
of the aircraft was resting on the fairing. No problem. It will probably survive
a flat tire with only some paint damage. We could probably land on it without
any wheel inside at all.
> 2) A decision was made to keep the axle nuts outside of the fairing. We needed
an attach point for the tow bar anyway, and it would either be a hole or a small
protrusion. By keeping the axle ends outside of the fairing I could make
the fairing more than 5 cm (2 inches) smaller! Also, I could eliminate the arms
(saving additional width and weight) and fasteners (leaving the rest of the
fairing smooth), by just embedding two metal plates in the layups and using the
axle bolts itself to fasten the fairing. Now the fairing got significantly
smaller,
also the theoretical length would be smaller. Because I wanted a longer
fairing, I just kept the length of the original fairing to get the ratio I
wanted.
And because the fairing is so small, it is easy to make a natural transition
into the wheel at the bottom of the fairing without any curve or flat part
on the sides of the underside.
> 3) Instead of the vertical division, I wanted a lengthwise division so the cut
would be in line with the airflow. Instead of dividing it into two halves, Ilona
came up with the idea to make a cut so that a part of the bottom can be taken
off. This allows the wheel to enter, and it makes the vulnerable bottom part
to be easily replaceable. Also, it gives the interesting option to fly with
the bottom removed in winter time, to give more clearance for the wheel and
to allow mud and snow to fall out by itself.
>
> A few notes:
> The upper part of the fairing is wider than the lower part. This is because
> the
upper part must also encapsulate the yoke. If then a straight angle to the
rear is followed, the rear of the fairing automatically gets this "swept back"
appearance and its curved underside. This is also the reason that the "nose"
is above the center of the wheel.
> Of course the bottom of the fairing is a bit of a compromise to get enough
> clearance
on ramps and to blend in the profile of the wheel as good as possible.
> The "skirts" on the side are purposedly not rigid. They will give way if
> something
catches between the tire and the skirt.
> I made the shape of blue foam, and decided to leave it inside except of course
for the cavity of the wheel. This adds further strength for a very low weight
penalty.
> There is a small "bulge" in the division cut on the port side, this is to
> facilitate
access to the valve of the tire. I only have to drop the underside of
the fairing to get access to it.
> To remove the entire fairing, the wheel assembly must be taken off. There is
however not much need to remove the fairing, as even the wheel can be taken out
of the yoke without removing the upper part of the fairing.
> The fairing is reinforced near the shaft. This forms the third attachment
> point,
so that the fairing can not rotate over the axle.
> There is additional clearance at the rear of the tire, so the wheel can never
"catch" the fairing.
> The yellow appearance of the fairing is due to the color of the aramide cloth.
The ragged appearance of edges is also due to the aramide. Of course the fairing
will receive a proper finish.
>
> This is a one of design, however if someone wants to use it as a plug that is
possible. Keep in mind though that it is designed for nose wheel assemblies with
a 3cm longer shaft than original.
>
> Frans
> <compare.jpeg>
> <front.jpeg>
> <side.jpeg>
> <top.jpeg>
> <underside_closed.jpeg>
> <underside_opie.jpeg>
|