I CAN'T HELP MYSELF...but  I keep going back AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN...N' AGAIN to our master buider and flyer's amazing website to read about his unique control systems.

http://www.netax.sk/hexoft/stunt/index.htm
www.netax.sk/hexoft/stunt/the_max_ii.htm

Especially challenging (at least for my meager and suspect soldering skills) this linkage system has me reeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallly interested.

In the past....(distant) Bob Violett sent me a free-bee "Flying Fork" linkage that I installed in an patched up White n' Nobler.
Although that model grooved beautifully...I couldn't seem to feed in enough control movement to get a snappy quick corner. Worse yet, due to my quick installation, the control input was really "stiff" (bad alignment, according to Bob Violett?)
 Funnier yet... I hacked out a  much larger spaced quickee custom make shift flying handle that I thought might add a bit of leverage, but that even made matters worse.
With my lame right hand....
I AM SURE THAT I DO NOT HAVE THE SKILLS OR TALENT to fabricate such an amazingly complicated control linkage set up such as Igor's artistical and most challenging control system.

Bottom line:
I have always felt that control linkages are one item that like our stunt pattern...is still stuck in the dark ages of time.
After watching Igor's beautiful smoooooth level laps and snappy corners on video...hummm?
ANY INPUT OR IDEAS about new improved control linkage set ups?

I would guess that the steel plate bits are probably water jetted, or possibly laser cut. Igor is a good engineer, and he would surely be able to provide ACAD data to send to a water jet shop. The ACAD is the expensive part. The water jet process is pretty cheap. They might take a little delicate handwork to fit the bearing into the slotted lever, but everything else is pretty basic aeromodelling.

I'm happy to see folks experimenting with ExpoCranks and the IgorCrank, but I kinda doubt that "fancy" helps that much. Smooth and free controls with good geometry are more important, don'tcha think? Many still don't even try getting the geometry right, or use a good handle!  Steve

.......When you feel what a difference just a an eighth of an inch or so in the length of handle overhang can make a better control system could really be an eye-opener.  Igor certainly thinks so.  Go back and read the article on the second Humbug.  Bob and Bill had to design a exponential bellcrank to tame down the controls so the plane could be flown for maximum performance.  Exponential controls go along way towards giving our 1/10th of a second reflexes more time to cope with a 2/10th second corner.

Igor's English takes a bit of work to read, but his explanation makes it clear that the Igorcrank produces more flap deflection around neutral and less at the extremes.  The Expocrank (if it's the same as the one on Baron's PA-6 plan) does just the opposite.  I'm interested in building a plane similar to the Humbug, and emailed Bill about the Humbug article, because his description of the control feel and unusual cornering qualities was a bit vague to me, aside from the fact that judges tended not to like the corners.  He replied with a very friendly and detailed email, but not much light was shed on this particular point.....either that or I am dense, which my friends assure me is entirely possible.     

Has anyone flown a Humbug, especially one with a stabilitor, since there are many versions?  If so, what did you think?

Kim Mortimore

Naw, NASA would just force him into a box and limit his thinking. Used top be the bright guys went to work for NASA. Now it's just bureaucrats and bean counters.

Isn't that what most corporations do to some of our college genius's.  I guy I fly with once in a great while had a degree from college, but, could find no jobs to match his education.  He was retired from the railroad after many years of employment when he lost a leg to a rail car wheel.  Have fun,  DOC Holliday