HOW ACCURATE IS NETTO? Stephen Du Pont Soaring Satiety of America SUMMARY the Historical Origin and General History of the Maccr
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HOW ACCURATE IS NETTO? Stephen du Pont Soaring Satiety of America SUMMARY The historical origin and general history of the MacCready vertical current total energy variometer (now termed "netto"), including its optimum airspeed selector ring are reviewed, and some later developments of it are discussed. Polars of three sailplanes of different spans are charted for straight and circling flight, then plotted to reveal their parabolic anomaly and the effect of circling flight sink rate. These effects are further analyzed for their influence on the transient compensation of netto variometers as well as the speed ring. Some other disturbances due to the quality of sailplane preparation and flight dynamics are listed. Conclusions are drawn about the problems to pilots from imperfect netto variometer compensation and its effect on the maximization of ground speed from the speed ring. A modification for improvements to the speed ring and computer is suggested. DISCUSSION Ideally a variometer would be "compensated" to eliminate needle deflec- tion resulting from speed changes so as to show only the vertical motion due to vertical air currents surrounding the glider. But the sailplane is an isolated energy system in which changing speed requires an exchange of its 247 I llllllllllIII I potential energy for kinetic energy, causing changes of altitude. Its drag forces also increase generally with airspeed squared, producing a parabolic variation of sink rate with airspeed (ref. 1). The pure total energy variometers are compensated through the change of dynamic pressure with airspeed which is converted by either a venturi (ref. 2), Braunschweig tube, etc., or an elastic bellows (ref. 3) to cancel the unwanted "stick thermal" coming from the zoom and dive maneuvers necessary to change speed in a glider. But they do not produce a fixed variometer needle with airspeed variations because of the drag force variation. Thus they leave some- thing to be desired. In 1949, Paul MacCready Jr. had disclosed his invention of the "speed ring" in a paper (ref. 4) read at the IAS-SSA meeting at Elmira while its author was busy winning the National Soaring Championship there. In 1954 MacCready first disclosed at the IAS-SSA meeting in New York his new "vertical current" variometer (ref. 1) today known as "netto" which more effectively than anything else known even today improved the "compensation" of sailplane variometers. At the same time it greatly simplified the use of the speed ring. The theory of the device was to leak a small calibrated flow of air proportional to V2 outwards through the variometer, causing it to add the sink rate for still air to the variometer indication. The result was to indicate the vertical air current rather than the climb or sink rate of the sailplane. MacCready pointed out that with this arrangement the speed ring now indicated directly the speed to fly, dispensing with "iteration", that is the need to chase the needle while bringing the sailplane speed to a number never quite stabilized on the ring by the variometer needle. Today it seems incomprehensible that the soaring world took twenty years to appreciate 248 the device which twenty five years later remains the best. It is perhaps natural that a meteorologist would be preoccupied with the measurements of vertical currents, but only one who was also a sailplane expert would have combined the need with the tool and come up with such an ultimate solution. There are several ways of plumbing the laminar leak (refs. 1, 3, and 5) used for the vertical current compensator to various total energy systems so as to produce the specified flow proportional to V2. MacCready had placed the leak between the pitot and the variometer capacity line since he had used a venturi type total energy compensator (ref. 2) which is connected outboard of the variometer static vent. This produces a pressure differential across the leak of twice the dynamic pressure, which we call Zq, where q = l/2 pV2, p being density. Thus, Ps + q - (q + Ps) = 2q, where Ps is the static pressure of the altitude of the sailplane. Because q contains V2 the pressure across the leak is proportional to V2 and the flow through a laminar leak is pro- portional to the pressure across it. In "SoaringW for 1975 (ref. 5) Don Ott's arrangement of the leak with a total energy venturi was described. He ran the netto leak from the capacity line to static pressure, and showed that cockpit pressure was close enough, so he left the leak simply open to the cockpit. Here the pressure across the leak is: P - (-4 + PSI = q S still giving the specified V2 pressure variation of MacCready. Where a bellows or diaphragm total energy compensator (ref. 3) is used which is driven by the difference of pitot pressure and the capacity (Burton, PZL, Schuemann etc.), the leak parallels the bellows and the pressure 249 differential is: ps+q-Ps=q 2 and again we have MacCready's V pressure variation. With the arrangement shown by MacCready, the capillary must be twice as long as with the other systems mentioned here. Reference to the 1975 Soaring article (ref. 5) will yield the formula for calculating the capillary. In 1954 the Ka-6 sailplane was three years in the future. But many modern sailplanes today incorporate camber changing flaps, broad drag bucket airfoils, and very rigid and smooth wing skins, and realize broad areas of laminar flow in the boundary layer. Still the shape of the polar is much as MacCready had described it: "approximately" and "fairly exactly" and "within a few inches per second" of parabolic, which means of course that the sink rate is nearly proportional to airspeed squared. It is nearly proportional, but not quite, as figures 4 to 6 herein show. Those are generally sharper curved at the low end than the parabola, that is the sink rate in that area is greater. The PIK does not show any droop at the fast end while l-26 and the AS-W 17 do show it. SCOPE AND LIMITS OF STUDY We investigate here specifically a) those netto errors, transient and steady, that come from the parabolic anomalies of some typical real world polars, b) those netto errors that are due to the variations from these straight flight polars that occur in banked circling flight, and c) errors from the netto speed ring. We do not go into some other errors due to 1) Flight off design altitude of variometers. 250 2) Transient variations in L/D from maneuvers causing accelerations that change the wing loading and from L/D changes caused by uncoordinated skidding or slipping. 3) Changes in L/D from wing loading variations due to weight of crew, equipment, ballast, center-of-gravity effect, etc. 4) L/D variations from flap position, aileron rig, aileron flap couplers, etc. 5) L/D variations coming from air leaks, ventilators, loose fairings and gear doors, etc. 6) Pitot static position and airspeed calibration errors. 7) Total energy probe and vent position errors from wing pressure field and wake, probe yaw and angle of attack errors, and uncoordinated skidding and slipping probe errors. 8) Plumbing hose length and capacity resistance in fittings, and hose pinch, restrictors, filters, electric damping, etc. as they affect variometer indication. 9) Dirty wings and skins, skin stress wrinkles, assymetrical ballast, etc. Such errors may or may not be transient, will be difficult to predict, detect, and measure, may be cumulative, and may have comparative values that are significant compared to the errors analyzed. In the light of the foregoing a knowledgeable pilot has a right to wonder about the reliability of his netto for finding better air as well as for the maximization of ground speed from the speed ring or computer. He may ask 251 1) How important is the effect of the parabolic anomaly of polars versus the true parabolic characteristics of the V2 driven leak? 2) If the variometer that is read in circling flight, and the speed ring set to it, is compensated according to a polar derived in straight flight (since this indicates too low a climb and sets the ring too low (slow), will this significantly affect'the maximization of ground speed? 3) If the speed ring that is derived for circling climb (no progress being made along course while climbing) is set during straightaway climb along course, this sets the ring too low (slow) (refs. 6 and 7). Does this affect the maximization of ground speed? 4) What are the effects of a mismatched leak to accomodate parabolic anomaly (it would be too short, too much flow) or one for the wrong sailplane or incorrect polar? (Capillary somewhat too short or too long.) 5) Is netto well enough compensated both for climb circling orstraightawa; so that it can be relied upon during small speed changes? To obtain answers to these questions we have considered polars of the 12- meter l-26 sailplane, the 15-meter PIK-20 and the 20-meter AS-W 17 (ref. 7). The polars have then been reworked by recalculating the slow ends for 40 and 50 degrees of banked turning (30 degrees has an insignificant effect) by the method of the Appendix (taken from ref. 8). (See figs. 1 to 3.) The results, including the noncircling polar, have been replotted with the sink rate against airspeed squared. When any parabola is so plotted, it is a straight line passing through the origin. This makes it easy to inspect the parabolic anomalies of the curves. True parabolic characteristics of netto leaks can be compared to polars. If the polar were parabolic and the leak matched it they would plot the same, as one straight line.