"Do you not think that all 3 points will want to line up?"
No.
The handle and center of mass (c.g.) will line up radially, regardless of where the bellcrank is, and the leadout exit positions will determine the yaw angle of the plane relative to it's flight path. Keith pointed out that Al Rabe's planes, among many others with dihedral, prove this every time they fly. That's also why you have adjustable leadouts, and moving them does re-position the bellcrank along with the rest of the plane in flight. This is required by Newton's First and Third laws of motion and requires no math or "formulas" to verify. If it were wrong, then the entire structure of modern science and technology is wrong, and what we've accomplished just hasn't happened. Structural, wear, and weight distribution advantages of particular bellcrank locations have been noted ad infinitim.
Really!!!! You need to READ these posts! Everything you have just said was covered thoroughly by Howard, Keith, and me in the last few posts:
1) The picture was made as a joke.
2) You've criticized things that were not claimed; no one questioned that things turn better with smaller polar moments of inertia.
3) Howard just again discussing the equivalence of gravitational and centrifugal forces and what to do, if you doubt it: just do the actual experiment with CL planes flying in a circle. You will see as others have demonstrated, that the bellcrank does not align itself between the c.g. and the handle, nor must it lie along the flight circle radius. Line drag will be shown to be the only difference between circular flight and simply hanging models by their leadouts. Einstein even based some of his explanations of the general theory of relativity on equivalence of gravitational and centrifugal forces. The very nontrivial "formula" E = mc2 is the result of that reasoning.
4) Bill is far from the only person to show that bellcranks do not have to line up. Some, as shown have done these experiments in flight and many others, including me, have done the equivalent simple demonstrations that dictate the "no" answer above. Personalities are irrelevant here.
No one has questioned your being a skillful builder of marvelous planes, which may fly quite well, but denial of basic principles upon which all science and technology is based does not explain whatever fine flying qualities your planes may have. Any plane built well and accurately to reasonable dimensions will fly well. That it will fly well does not invalidate basic principles not understood by its builder. (Edited to add the word 'not' in the last sentence)
Topic: Science in pics (Read 24197 times)