Leadout location on an Ugly Stick

[Tim Wescott]

Where should the leadouts go on an Ugly Stick?

[tom brightbill]

2" behind the servo horns! WTH !!!??

[Joe Just]

Out the wing tip on the ugly side.
Joe

[Tim Wescott]

WTH !!!??

Whadda mean WHT?

Mark Scarborough suggested that I was building an Ugly Stick for control line, so I thought I should make sure that if I did it, I did it right.

[proparc]

Forget the leadouts and concentrate on the right amount of aileron travel.

Don't go over 2000 rpm at idle so you can taxi properly.

We'll discuss the proper way to exit a spin later on.

[RC Storick]

This is for the engineers who like to hang planes (Howard et.. all) Hang the plane and move the lead outs fore and aft so you have slight outward drop at the nose. But it will fall behind the CG.

Look at this video and start at 1hr 8 min in almost to the end.



Someone had a clue!  

[tom brightbill]

Isn't it really a Butt Ugly Stick if it has leadouts (anywhere)?

[Brett Buck]

This is for the engineers who like to hang planes (Howard et.. all) Hang the plane and move the lead outs fore and aft so you have slight outward drop at the nose. But it will fall behind the CG.

   The angle is easily calculated using LINEII or Bob Reeves' LINE III, it's roughly 1.5 to 2.5 degrees on normal-sized airplanes - larger for lighter airplanes, and smaller for heavier airplanes. You also get the distance at the wingtip. Its in the ballpark of 3/4" to maybe 1 1/4 behind the CG.

    It will indeed always fall behind the CG. It's there to compensate for the rearward sag of the lines.

     Brett

[Mark Scarborough]

Where should the leadouts go on an Ugly Stick?

Tim,, please open a window when you are doping your new wing,, it seems to be affecting you ,
So much more if you are rustoleum painting ,,
Dude,, you are almost as bad as me,, LOL
Merry Christmas Tim,,

[Tim Wescott]

   The angle is easily calculated using LINEII or Bob Reeves' LINE III, it's roughly 1.5 to 2.5 degrees on normal-sized airplanes - larger for lighter airplanes, and smaller for heavier airplanes. You also get the distance at the wingtip. Its in the ballpark of 3/4" to maybe 1 1/4 behind the CG.

OK.  So -- straight out the wingtip, behind the CG to the degree indicated by LINE II.  Got it.

[john e. holliday]

When  we still had the tight circle at KC City Park,  there was an individual that used to change RC pattern ships to CL.   Did pretty well with them.  Can't remember his name, but the planes were the ready to fly stuff.  Never pursued the idea myself.  MERRY CHRISTMAS

[RC Storick]

OK.  So -- straight out the wingtip, behind the CG to the degree indicated by LINE II.  Got it.

I thought I said that. But I guess we need a program to figure that out. No program will accurately give you the angle as each airplanes weight distribution is different. It will only get you close and must be finally adjusted after test flights. But what do I know.

[Mike Griffin]

Here is the forumla for that Tim that works every time.

They hypotenuse of the chord squared by pi is equal to the transcendental to the third power of  E= Mc2 divided by 3(3z + 4k) = 3 nano quarks x tail moment + 2.
This should do it.  

[Brett Buck]

Here is the forumla for that Tim that works every time.

They hypotenuse of the chord squared by pi is equal to the transcendental to the third power of  E= Mc2 divided by 3(3z + 4k) = 3 nano quarks x tail moment + 2.
This should do it.  

   Bt all means, just put it anywhere, at random, and then adjust it by eye and old wives tales. I mean, whats the worst that can happen, you can run 65 mph, right?

    Brett

[Howard Rush]

No program will accurately give you the angle as each airplanes weight distribution is different. It will only get you close and must be finally adjusted after test flights.

It's true that it will only get you close, but not because of weight distribution differences.  A rigid body having any weight distribution, but the same CG, will hang at the same angle.

[Brett Buck]

It's true that it will only get you close, but not because of weight distribution differences.  A rigid body having any weight distribution, but the same CG, will hang at the same angle.

     I was just happy to know that Bob has finally recognized that the CG is the reference, and not the bellcrank pivot. Small steps.

     Brett

[Mark Scarborough]

Tim,, now see what you have done,, tsk tsk,,

[RC Storick]

    I was just happy to know that Bob has finally recognized that the CG is the reference, and not the bellcrank pivot. Small steps.

     Brett

Let me ask you this Brett. I guess your saying that it makes no difference if the bellcrank pivot it out of the norm and centrifugal force tries to line it all up with the CG? Or does this not come into play. Also why is it the farther you move the BC back the more nose heavy the plane feels. I know why but everyone over looks these little details.

And I understand way more than you give me credit for. With the ability to build at least 4 airplanes a year I can feel the differences rather quickly as opposed to building and testing 1 plane every 10 years.

[Howard Rush]

Also why is it the farther you move the BC back the more nose heavy the plane feels.

Bob Hunt noticed that Robby's plane with the aft bellcrank location flew well.  Those of us tainted by physics know it ain't the pivot location, but if it's the case, I'd suspect it's doing something beneficial to the control linkage.  To find out what's happening you could do a 3D analysis of the control linkage. 

[Tim Wescott]

Bob Hunt noticed that Robby's plane with the aft bellcrank location flew well.  Those of us tainted by physics know it ain't the pivot location, but if it's the case, I'd suspect it's doing something beneficial to the control linkage.  To find out what's happening you could do a 3D analysis of the control linkage. 

Did Robby's plane have CF pushrods?  Could it just have been an increase in rigidity in the overall control system?

[RC Storick]

Here is the deal DO IT ANY WAY YOU WANT TO.

[Brett Buck]

Let me ask you this Brett. I guess your saying that it makes no difference if the bellcrank pivot it out of the norm and centrifugal force tries to line it all up with the CG? Or does this not come into play. Also why is it the farther you move the BC back the more nose heavy the plane feels. I know why but everyone over looks these little details.

   Overlook? Nobody pays attention to this because it is absurdly wrong, you don't understand it even a little bit. I would try to explain again but you aren't listening. The airplane would have the same CG and the same "hang angle" in zero G, 1 G, or 3 Gs.

    If you really want to spend some time discussing how many airplanes - and trophies - people have, we can do that.

    Brett

[john e. holliday]

Seems that every one has their way of doing things.  Yes there are some that do it like others..  I know I probably have put the bell crank in the wrong place on some planes, but I never worried about it as long as the plane flew the way I wanted it to.   So instead of raising a big fuss over it, do it like 90% of the planes are done.  Now lets have a MERRY CHRISTMAS and drop the subject.  You know a search would solve a lot of problems, no matter what site  you are looking at.   I was told a long time ago, if you are showed something new, try it.  If it works that is fine,  if not store it away as it may work on a different further down the road.

[Perry Rose]

I used an Ugly Stik 20 wing without flaps/ailerons and installed it into a Primary Force scratch built fuselage. It flew well with those numbers. I set the leadout location with a line level first and go from there.

[Paul Smith]

15 degrees aft of the center of gravity. 

[Fred Cronenwett]

Do you an RC ugly stick kinda like this Ultra stick that I converted to CL? This monster with a 80" span and OS-91FX for power did rather well with the CL conversion. 

I put the leadout guides on the bottom of the wing tip with a 2.0 degree line rake as measured from the CG location. I never hung the model, just figured out where the CG was and then calculated the line guide location based upon the 2.0 degree line rake.


Fred

[Russell Shaffer]

Fred, do you have throttle control on your beast?  I like it.

[Fred Cronenwett]

Yes, I flew the model with 2.4Ghz controls with throttle and flaps. If I had that 91FX at full power it would have been too much. It flew at 1/3 power with that 16" prop.

The Elevator was traditional bellcrank with a dave brown fiberglass pushrod

Fred