The Aerospool Dynamic WT9 also uses a sprint system, works very well.
The Aquila A210/211 also has a spring system. Works quite well. Light stick forces anyway.
Trim tab drag has been given as the main reason for alternative trim arrangements, however is it not the down force on the tailplane that creates the drag? This why flying at the aft CofG limit gets the best speed. If there was very little downforce required then presumably you get minimum drag, whatever the trim system used. If a trim tab is in perfect trail I’d guess it creates no drag.
I made the statement regarding Mooneys…slightly tongue-in-cheek….I guess only other Mooniacs would understand!
I think the horizontal tail’s lift/drag ratio is likely better without a deflected trim tab.
Trim tab drag has been given as the main reason for alternative trim arrangements, however is it not the down force on the tailplane that creates the drag? This why flying at the aft CofG limit gets the best speed. If there was very little downforce required then presumably you get minimum drag, whatever the trim system used. If a trim tab is in perfect trail I’d guess it creates no drag.
If the elevator link breaks, you will presumably die.
Unlikely. I have to imagime most aircraft that use some kind of spring bias or bungee instead of a trim tab (or variable incidence tailplane) with no resistance in the circuit (iow with the elevator simply free) will trim out to some kind of sane flying speed within the normal operating envelope. With that being the case you then adjust engine power so you’re flying at that speed if you want to fly level, reduce power to descend, or increase power to ascend. Even if that speed is quite high all you need do is find a sufficiently long runway and certainly in Western Europe this shouldn’t be an issue.
If the elevator link breaks, you will presumably die.
I see the point, but it’s a bit like saying a bi plane is more safe because if you break one wing, you still have one wing left. Doesn’t the DC-3 use indirect control on all moving surfaces? (like trim tabs).
The early Cessna 182 (A through C), and the 180/185 had a variable incidence tail plane trim system, until the accountants switched the 182 to a single trim tab on the starboard elevator.
The 182 then developed a well earned reputation for wrinkled firewalls, as pilots in a forward CG condition seemed to run out of elevator and landed on the nose wheel. AOPA provides a good safety review of the type, with some advice to consider limiting flaps to 20 degrees if in a forward CG condition.
The early 182 is a poor man’s 180 these days. The 182 C is the last version with variable incidence trim, and apparently is the fastest of the normally aspirated 182 type, by a few knots.
The hinge:
