The New

Look On The
"ALL FLYING TAILS 9>

By Eugene L. Turner, EAA 3648

Designer of the Turner T-40
18711 Merridy St.
Northridge, Calif.

T-18-1
S OON YOU will see a "new look" on the "all-flying"
horizontal tails (stabilators) of the Thorp T-18 and
Turner T-40 series of aircraft (Photos T-18-4 and T-40-2).
The Thorp T-18, N-299V, on which the flutter tests were The new look is mass-balance weights on the leading edges
made, is now fitted with the prescribed mass-balance
weights on the stabilators. of the stabilators at the tips. The mass-balance weights
were added to prevent flutter and were the results of ex-
tensive testing on both airplanes. Details of these tests
are presented herein to give the amateur plane builder an
idea of the test program that an airplane is subjected to
in order to assure that the plane is "flutter-free."
Before explaining the test programs on the T-18 and
T-40 aircraft, a brief discussion on the subject of freedom
from flutter is necessary. Actually, the requirements are
adequately stated in the Federal Aviation Regulation FAR
23.629, which states in part:
"Flutter.
a. Each part of the airplane must be free from flutter
under each appropriate speed and power condition
up to at least the minimum value of VD allowed
in FAR 23.335.
In addition . . .
1. The wings, tail, and control surfaces must be
free from flutter, airfoil divergence, and con-
trol reversal from lack of rigidity for any con-
dition of operation with the V-n envelope.
2. Adequate wing torsional rigidity . . .
3. The mass balance of surfaces must be de-
T-18-2 signed to prevent flutter, and
4. The natural frequencies of main structural
components must be determined by tests.
b. Flight flutter tests are acceptable as proof of free-
dom from flutter if it is shown by these tests that
proper and adequate attempts to induce flutter
have been made within the speed range up to V H>
and that the vibratory resonance of the structure
during the tests indicates freedom from flutter."
Until now, it was a safe bet to state that all amateur-
built aircraft were "proven" flutter-free by an uninstru-
mented flight test. This was true for both of the subject
aircraft, and seemed satisfactory until one of the airplanes
encountered difficulties during service operation, which
proved out to be flutter. Both designers, Thorp and Turner,
returned to the engineering approach to determining the
answers as required by Item (a) above. This approach was
to conduct ground vibration-shake tests and confirm the
results by an instrumented flight flutter test. Details of
these tests are presented here:
T-18 FLUTTER TEST PROGRAM (by John Thorp)
An inspection of the wreckage of the first fatal T-18
T-18-3 accident strongly suggested the possibility of flutter of
10 AUGUST 1969
URNERT-40
HORP T-18 By John Thorp, EAA 1212
Designer of the Thorp T-18
909 E. Magnolia
Burbank, California

the horizontal tail. However, there were no witnesses. A

speed limitation of 180 mph was placed upon the T-18 as a
precaution. In the second accident, the break-up was es-
sentially identical to the first, and the horizontal tail was
seen by a credible witness to flutter and leave the air-
plane which was traveling at a very high speed just prior
to the crash.
At this point, a flutter investigation program on the
T-18 was initiated by the designer. The services of Special-
ized Testing Service of North Hollywood, Calif., were ob-
tained for instrumentation and ground shake tests.
Flutter of elastic structures can appear in many
forms, and the purpose of ground shake tests is to identify
possible flutter modes through isolating natural vibrating
frequencies of various related components.
The flight-flutter test can then be conducted by fly-
ing an instrumented airplane at known safe speeds and
observing the behavior of the modes that are suspect as
a result of the ground shake tests.
If, as the flight speed is increased, one or more pos-
sible flutter modes shows a reduction in damping, the test
is stopped until some corrective action is taken.
Whenever a change is made, the ground test is repeat-
ed for purposes of identification of modes and to deter-
mine if the change is corrective or detrimental.
\
By this means speeds are increased until the required T-18-5
value of V n is attained. The red line for the airplane is
then established at 90 percent of the maximum demon-
strated safe speed.
Such a program has now been accomplished on the
T-18, N-299V, serial no. 41, belonging to Richard Hanson
of Van Nuys, which was borrowed for the program
(Photo T-18-1).
A new horizontal tail incorporating the latest modifi-
cations (B-502) was built (Photo T-18-6). Sensors in the
form of strain gauges were installed on the beam and
control mast to indicate bending and torsion deflections
(Photo T-18-2).
The strain gauges were hooked to a 14-channel os-
cillograph through a suitable amplifier that occupied the
right-hand seat of the T-18 (Photo T-18-3).
In flight, the controls were pulsed and a record was
made on tape of amplitude and frequency of the resulting
vibrations. When the amplitudes decreased it could be
said that the record showed damping, and the controls
could safely be pulsed at a still higher speed. When the
amplitude did not diminish this showed a lack of damp-
ing, and tests were stopped at this speed until improve-
ments had been made.
(Continued on next page) T-18 6
SPORT AVIATION 11

T-40-1
The Turner T-40B, N-115ET, shown here in its present
tri-gear form, has evolved from the original single-place
through the two-place conventional gear versions, to the
present third version of the same airframe. The mass-
balance weights appear on the leading edge of the
stabilator.
T-40-3
12 AUGUST 1969
THE NEW LOOK . . .
(Continued from preceding page)
Ground tests were conducted using two electro-mag-
netic drivers that could be worked in phase or out of
phase. Th.ese were activated by an electronic oscillator.
Read-out form velocity pick-ups and accelerometers showed
on an oscilloscope through an amplifier (Photo T-18-5).
The original T-18 tail configuration, but with the
new beam, was flown by Jim Roberts with the flight-test
gear aboard N-299V. Damping was good at 170 mph and
180 mph, but at 190 mph the input impulse was undamped
showing an incipient flutter in the classical symmetrical
bending-torsion mode. This was undctectable to the pilot.
Actually, the writer had previously flown this airplane
to 200 mph without evidence of trouble, and had estab-
lished the 180 mph red-line on the basis of this uninstru-
mented flight test. Actually, both Jim and I had walked
the brink without knowing it.
A ground shake test verified the 31 cycle-per-second
bending mode shown on the tape for the 190 mph flight.
The bob weight had a 16 cps. natural frequency which
caused us to suspect the bob-weight arm of setting up the
flutter mechanism. The bob-weight arm was then stif-
fened and a ground shake showed a new frequency
of about 20 cps.
The writer then flew N-299V, as it had become appar-
ent that it wasn't ethical to ask anyone else to do his dirty
work. This time, pulses were introduced at 160 mph and
170 mph without incident. But, in going to 180 mph, a
full-blown flutter developed without pulsing at 175 mph.
Chopping power, the constant-speed propeller worked like
a dive brake and the flutter stopped in a few seconds.
Later, letting down at 165 mph, the flutter came back
showing that once it had learned how to flutter, it could
be induced at a lower speed. This was later explained
by evidence of structural damage due to the initial flutter.
Armed with a record that showed the anatomy of the
flutter mode that probably caused the two crashes, the
flutter specialists who had been called in to help de-
cided that the bob weight in the center was the wrong way
to go and that the balancing weights should be placed
where the action was. Accordingly, one-sixth of the static-
weight moment was introduced by placing weights at
each tip (Photo T-18-4) and a corresponding amount of
the center-line weight was removed.
Again, ground shake tests were run and it was ob-
vious that the torsion-bending relationship was improved.
However, suspicions were aroused at the tab behavior. The
tab control-arm rib showed excessive motion with the tab
skin in the shaking operation. A clip involving about ten
cents worth of material greatly stiffened the attachment
and moved the tab frequency well out of the suspicious
range.
Flights were made with control pulsing at 150 mph,
160 mph, 170 mph, 175 mph, 180 mph, 190 mph, 200 mph,
205 mph, 210 mph, and 220 mph. All showed good damping
of the induced oscillations.
As far as the horizontal tail was concerned, there
appeared to be no flutter limit on speed. However, since
there was no instrumentation that could show incipient
flutter of the vertical tail, ailerons, or wing, it was de-
cided not to push our luck too far.
A final flight with controls pulsed at 233 mph cali-
brated indicated airspeed gave us a red-line speed of
210 mph.
Drawings of tail changes have now been sent to all
T-18 builders.
The help of Bob Donham, Sandy Friezner, Stan Ras-
mussen and Ford Johnson in this project was invaluable,
and is greatly appreciated.
 It can now be concluded that while the ground rules
are different, the flying tail can be made as flutter re-
sistant as any other tail configuration or any other air-
plane component. It is also safe to predict that flying tails
on high-speed airplanes of the future will wear the "new
look" of at least some balance weight at the tips either
in the leading edge or just ahead of the leading edge.
T-40 SERIES GROUND VIBRATION SHAKE
TESTS AND RESULTS (by E. L. Turner)
As an EAA member, a friend, and not as an FAA en-
gineer, John Thorp invited me over to witness tests he
was having done on the T-18 to determine why a couple
of T-18s had experienced flutter, and what to do to
prevent further flutter. Needless to say, it did not take
me long to get concerned and realize that I should con-
duct a similar test program on my T-40 series aircraft.
This conclusion was rather obvious when a comparison
of the two tails was made. Areas, geometries, weights,
trim tabs, mass-balance details, etc., were very much
alike; the major difference was the material used for con- T-40-4
struction wood versus metal. The material difference
may explain why the T-40s have not experienced any flut-
ter problems wood has better internal dampening char-
acteristics than metal.
Regardless of the service history of the T-40s, I started
an immediate test program to assure the continued safe
history of the design. The first step was to borrow the
necessary equipment. But to borrow several thousand
dollars worth of specialized equipment is easier said than
done. However, I remembered that the FAA Aeronautical
Academy had vibration test equipment and had, on oc-
casion, loaned the equipment to small manufacturers.
I took a long shot which paid off they loaned me the
necessary items. After receiving the equipment I ran
into my first problem: I did not know how to hook up
the oscillator and amplifiers. The mechanical hook-up of
the exciters and accelerometers was easy. In asking
around for assistance I found that one of the Systems En-
gineers (FA Western Region) was a former EAA member
who was eager to help on a homebuilt project. He did a
fine job in setting up and adjusting the electronic equip-
ment, and later in interpreting oscilloscope readings.
Several other FAA engineers pitched in to help and
to learn, including our Flutter and Dynamic Specialist who
has guided me throughout the test program. In addition T-40-5
to the local FAA fellows, Bob Stevens from Anchorage
was here, and he had with him another EAAer from An-
chorage, Jerry Lawhorn, who had built the "Kee Bird."
In addition to these engineers, three others contrib-
uted their valuable time and knowledge to the success of
my test program. These engineers were Art Williams,
noted for his midget racers; and Ted Pastel and Bob Don-
ham, Flutter Specialists with Lockheed Aircraft Corp.
Without the assistance of all these men, the results of my
program would have suffered. Their efforts were greatly
appreciated,
Several ground shake tests were done in the following
manner: An exciter (an electrical/magnetic shaker) was
attached to some part of the airplane by a mechanical
linkage. The object was to drive the exciter at various
frequencies until components of the airplane vibrated at
their natural frequencies. When these frequencies are
reached, then measurements are made to determine the
modes and nodes of the part, or surface, being checked
by means of an oscilloscope. The exciter is driven by an
amplifier and controlled by an oscillator. When a natural
frequency is reached, it can be recognized several ways
sound, sight, feel, and the oscilloscope, the latter being
(Continued on next page) T-40-6
SPORT AVIATION 13
 Waterman
THE NEW LOOK . . .
(Continued from preceding page)
the precise way. Pick-ups for the oscilloscope for my
testing were miniature accelerometers. One was fastened
to either the fuselage in front of the fin or on the sta-
bilator tip for reference, a second mounted on the oppo-
site tip, and a third was used as a hand-held "explorer."
The traces on the oscilloscope would show by direct com-
parison when a resonance frequency occurred. Photos
T-40-3, -4, and -5 show mountings of accelerometers on
Corvair
the wing and empennage. For natural frequencies of fin

Engines
bending and fuselage side bending, the exciter was
mounted horizontally and attached to the tail skid.
Photo T-40-6 shows the two amplifiers, one for each
shaker used, the oscillator, and the oscilloscope. Photos
T-40-3 and -5 show the small 25 Ib.-force exciters used to
shake the T-40B. The exciter in Photo T-40-5 is just for-
ward of the tailwheel.
To give the amateur builder an idea of the various
frequencies of an airplane, the ones identified on the
original T-40B and Walt Lane's T-40 are listed here in
cycles per second:
T-40B with By Waldo D. Waterman, EAA 23967
T-40B tip wghts. T-40 Modes
390 San Antonio, No. 12, San Diego, Calif.
9.5 9.5 First wing bending
13.0 13.5 13.0 Horizontal tail anti-symmetric
bending
30.5 Wing torsion (PART 3)
25.0 19.5 37.8
Symmetrical stabilator bending
44.0 38.5 63.0
Mass balance arm/tab (out of phase)
33.0 50.5 38.5
Mass balance arm/tab (in phase)
49.0 51.0
61.0
26.0
Stabilator torsion
63.0
Tab
52.5
Fin bending
T HIS MONTH we have some of the long-promised draw-
ings for the Corvair conversion. I have read with
great interest the article in the April, 1969 SPORT AVIA-
22.0 Fuselage vertical bending TION of Mr. Pietenpol's experiences with the Corvair. For
35.0 Fuselage torsion anyone who would be satisfied with approximately 80 hp
20.5 Fuselage side bending at 250 Ibs., his approach is very acceptable cost-wise and
68.0 Aileron may well fit into a segment of the demand for an inex-
pensive engine that I am not trying to cover. Mr. Pieten-
An examination of the results of the T-40B shake
pol has always done a fine job in a simplified approach
test No. 1 indicated that the mass-balance weight arm and
to the use of automotive products in aviation, and should
the trim-tab frequencies coincided with engine cruise
be commended.
rpm. To separate these frequencies, part of the original
I certainly go along with his use of the original Cor-
mass-balance weight, mounted in the fuselage, was re- vair cooling system. As the heads are designed, a cooling-
moved and replaced at the tips of the stabilator approxi- air passage parallel to the direction of flight would be
mately six inches in front of the leading edge. This was
wrong as the design calls for entry from the top. Some of
done and proved satisfactory during the second series of you may think that the Corvair would work nicely in an
shake tests. The second tests revealed that the vertical airplane without the standard cooling system; to me this
tail needed the tip mass balance. About one-third of total seems foolhardy. Do not think for a minute that all you
mass balance for the rudder was placed at the tip of the
have to do with an air-cooled engine in an airplane is to
rudder. This was accomplished prior to the first flight stick it out in the slip-stream and let the breeze keep it
on March 2, 1969. A study of the frequencies of Walt cool! If the air stream is not directed in the proper amounts
Lane's T-40 revealed that the balance-weight arm/tab, and in the proper directions, trouble will soon come. Gen-
and the stabilator symmetrical bending frequencies were eral Motors spent a huge amount to perfect this cooling
close to each other, and would have to be spread apart by system. It takes less horsepower to drive the fan than
installing tip mass balance. Mandatory modification draw- it does to ram the cooling air around the engine from the
ings were made and distributed to all builders of T-40 slip-stream. Long ground runs and delays are no prob-
and T-40A aircraft for both the stabilator and rudder lem. I have as yet to get cylinder head temperatures over
balance. 400 deg. F. with the blower system operative. On one oc-
SUMMARY casion, a fan belt failure caused a semi-emergency in that
Based on the flutter investigation tests results by the engine got dangerously hot. By immediately throttling
Thorp and Turner, plus the recommendation of McKillip, down to minimum power necessary to sustain flight, I got
a noted flutter expert, it appears that the new look of the back to the field (about ten minutes of flying) and found
T-18 and T-40 aircraft may become the means to insure no damage except the oil temperature gauge went to the
flutter-free flight operation for planes with flying tails. pin and was destroyed. Protracted flying under these
There are many variables which must be considered and circumstances would have resulted in a ruined engine. If
which have not been mentioned in this discussion, so it you want to get ambitious, just duplicate the main shroud
is impossible to make a positive statement as to the and end plates and cylinder cuffs in aluminum. You
means to prevent flutter without ground vibration shake would save four pounds. You throw away the lower ther-
tests substantiated by instrumented flight flutter tests. mostatically controlled air ducts.
14 AUGUST 1969