Aerofoam ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: : But it increases the rotational mass without increasing the surface area, so : the increased mass : dampens the movement. It takes more force to get the surface moving in the : first place.
That would mean counterbalancing is equivalent to making heavier surfaces, as far as flutter is concerned. But the OP posited and none disagreed that lighter surfaces are better. The later posts were on the money: raise the resonant frequency. This is done by reducing mass and increasing stiffness. This approach makes best use of whatever damping is available to keep the amplitude down. Then even if the surface should flutter at resonance, the amplitudes are bounded. Of course the other method, which is to reduce resonant frequency to below that of the excitation, can also work. I think that is what you were referring to above. However the worst case scenario is worse. -harold RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.
