I'm about to embark on a SIG Banshee kit build. My winter project.

I'm going to do a few typical mods such as upgraded controls, 4" bell crank, alum landing gear, etc. I had a stock Banshee some time ago and I basically know where the CG needs to be to my liking. So, I will adjust the engine location as needed and trim the nose as needed. Planned power is an OS Max-s 30 or 35.

But one question I have relates to the Banshee tail to wing area ratio which is pretty small at 15%. Others have said the model benefits from a slightly larger tail area.

As a comparison, these are the ratios of the other flapped models I have:

Vector 40 at 21%
Nobler ARF at 17% (I also understand the Nobler ARF tail is kinda small)
P40 ARF at 23%

So, for this type of a somewhat vintage profile flapped model, is there a good 'rule of thumb' tail to wing area ratio that is recommended? Or one that is specific to the Banshee?

Then if I increase the tail area, what is the proper way to do it?

Increase overall length and chord proportionately?
Just increase length?
Just increase chord?

Words of wisdom highly encouraged.

Thanks in advance

Colin

I remember in 1973 when the Banshee came out.  It was well-received as a larger profile stunter.

Based on my single experience I say: shorter nose and bigger tail.  How much depends on the drive system.  I believe the design intent was a basic unmuffled Fox 35 stunt.  Modern engines are twice the mass.

The easiest thing to do would be to increase both chord and span by 10%.

While you're at it, the Banshee has a short wing-tail distance, and for most engines a too-long nose.  Some people will move the wing forward by 1.5 or 2 inches.

I'm not sure how that'll work out with your intended engine, however.

Quote from: Tim Wescott on December 02, 2025, 09:57:36 AM
The easiest thing to do would be to increase both chord and span by 10%.

While you're at it, the Banshee has a short wing-tail distance, and for most engines a too-long nose.  Some people will move the wing forward by 1.5 or 2 inches.

I'm not sure how that'll work out with your intended engine, however.

Thx Tim for the suggested tail size info. I'll probably target a tail to wing area ratio something near 23-25%.

I'm going to change gears and move the wing forward. Even if I moved it a full 2" there is still plenty of room on the Banshee nose for the planned OS Max-s 35 plus a 4 oz wide wedge tank.

Colin

The comment about your engine and the really long nose was because if the engine is really lightweight, a long nose will help balance the plane.

Quote from: Tim Wescott on December 02, 2025, 03:14:44 PM
The comment about your engine and the really long nose was because if the engine is really lightweight, a long nose will help balance the plane.

Understood

The original Banshee was designed around an un-muffled Fox 35 at around 6 oz, hence the long nose. The Max-s 35 is like 7 oz but around 9 oz with the stock muffler. And moving the wing forward along with a larger tail surface will change the CG for the model from stock. I also have some 35 size engine options. I will build and finish the complete model and not drill any engine mounting holes until I can play with the CG as a final build step. Then adjust the final engine location as may be needed.

Colin

Quote from: Tim Wescott on December 02, 2025, 09:57:36 AM
The easiest thing to do would be to increase both chord and span by 10%.

While you're at it, the Banshee has a short wing-tail distance, and for most engines a too-long nose.  Some people will move the wing forward by 1.5 or 2 inches.

I'm not sure how that'll work out with your intended engine, however.

If you change all that, it's a whole new design.

Quote from: Paul Smith on December 03, 2025, 07:49:52 AM
If you change all that, it's a whole new design.

And yet folks do it.

Quote from: Paul Smith on December 03, 2025, 07:49:52 AM
If you change all that, it's a whole new design.

In the case of the Banshee, these changes are sorely needed.  The Fancherized Twister mods addressed similar issues and it resulted in a better performing ship in every regard.

Ok I may be way out of shape here but wouldn't shortening the nose somewhat have the same effect as moving the wing forward, and be a lot easier? im thinking about the "dumbbell effect" that Gialdini explained in his excellent Olympic article.  My only Banshee was Enya 35 powered, had shortened nose by about 30 mm, engine mounted as far back as I could. Standard bell crank but carbon rods and adjustable lead outs. I loved it!!  Unfortunately succumbed last year to a broken line.  Turned and grooved well with either stock (small) or tongue muffler.
Seasons greetings all,  PT

Moving the wing forward is not a difficult task. Doing so will add some better leverage for the elevator because the wing to elevator moment will be lengthened. You might also consider adding about 2 inches to the stab and elevators span as well. It'll make you happy.

The best and easiest way to move the wing forward is to trace out the wing mounting hole in the fuse. Transfer that tracing to some 1/2" thick balsa, cut the airfoil shape out and fit it into the wing mounting hole. once the fit is right. glue it in place. After the glue is completely dry, use a soft pencil and draw a line to use as a gauge to align the tracing airfoil nose 2-3" forward of the now filled old wing opening, depending on the weight of your engine tank and such. transfer the lines from your tracing or pattern to the new position. Cut out the new wing opening. The beauty of doing it this way removes the possibility of making unwanted changes to the engine thrust line (if you were careful positioning the new wing cut out.)

Lots of Banshees have been modified this way. In any case the Banshee will need to have the nose moment shortened unless you are using a very lite weight engine.

I appreciate all the great comments and design inputs. I had a stock Banshee, and it flew quite well. My goal is to improve on what was already there.

My current plan is to move the wing forward 1.5" to increase the tail moment and increase the tail area with the goal of improved stability and turning. With the wing 1.5" forward there is still plenty of room for the planned 35-size engine and 4 oz wide wedge uniflow fuel tank.

The Banshee stock tail area is 15% of the wing area which is pretty small by today's standards. My current plan is to increase the tail area (stab + elev) to 22% of the wing. Stab/elev area split 60/40 with an aspect ratio close to 4.

The other basic changes I plan are:
4" bell crank
CF pushrods w/ ball joints
Alum landing gear
Wing tip weight box
Adjustable lead out guide
Upgraded lead outs

Colin

SIG Banshee Mods per Jack Sheeks:
Mods I made to Mr. Ugly

Mods recommended by Jack Sheeks:
1.   Shorten the nose 3/4 inch. This will require cutting the ½ inch body plank and both 1/8 Ply doublers and moving the Motor Mounts back the same amount.

2.   Replace Stab and Elevator. New sizes are each 22 by 3 inches tapered to 2 inches at the tips. Retain the 14 inch hinge line to hinge line spacing.

3.   Modify the Outboard Flap to clear the Pushrod by removing a 1/2 x 1 inch piece from the inboard rear corner.

4.   Set up the controls for a maximum of +/- 30 degrees of travel on the Flaps and Elevator.

Additional Mods I incorporated in Mr. Ugly:

1.   Replace original Motor Mounts with new Mounts 3/8 x 1/2 x 11 7/8 inches. This extends the Motor Mounts all the way to the 1/4 x 1/4 Wing Spars. Notch the Wing Sheeting to clear the new Motor Mounts. This requires assembling the body with the Wing installed! Use very slow set epoxy. This Mod greatly stiffens the nose.

2.   Space Motor Mounts for Engine. Fox 35 requires 1 1/4 inch spacing. If your engine requires a different Motor Mount spacing try to maintain the original thrust line.

3.   The kit as cut fits a Fox 35, extend the cutout in the 1/2 body plank to 4 3/4 inches behind the engine. This will then allow for a 3/4 inch space between the engine and the Fuel Tank and allow the tank to be recessed into the body for better fuel feed. Note: Mine had a standard 1 x 2 x 4 inch Square Wedge Uniflow Tank.

4.   Modify the outboard 1/8 Ply Doubler to clear the engine. Move back 3/ 4 inch and then cut out the area between Motor Mounts for the 1 x 2 x 4 Fuel Tank leaving a little clearance for installing the tank. When ready to assemble the body, insert a 3/4 x 1/2 In. balsa block to fill in between the engine cutout and the Fuel Tank cutout between the Motor Mounts.

How did Mr. Ugly get its name?
I wanted to learn how to fly the stunt pattern. My flying friend Jack Sheeks said that if I built a good stunt model he would coach me through the learning process. In the spring of 1988 I bought a SIG Banshee kit from Jack Sheeks Hobby Shop and Jack marked up the plans with the changes he recommended. I built the model with Jack's recommendations and some personal ideas. So that I would know any problems I had flying the pattern would be me and not the model I asked Jack to test fly it first. Jack took it off and did a couple of easy maneuvers and then flew it level for 6 laps. At this point I assumed it was way off! Not so! Jack proceeded to fly a full pattern that even I could identify each maneuver.

When the fuel ran out Jack landed it and told me I could NOT fly my model until he said so. Back to the Nobler. Later that summer Jack took my model to the SIG CL contest and entered it in stunt. Remember this was only to be a stunt trainer for me so I used available material I had on hand to finish the model. Orange iron on covering for the wing, tail feathers and to mark out the canopy. The rest of the body was painted with flat camouflage tan dope left over from a scale military model. Yes, Bright Orange wing and tail with a flat Tan body. The other contestants started teasing Jack about his UGLY model. Jack said they would be calling it Mr. Ugly before the weekend was over and took a black marker and wrote Mr. Ugly on the wing. After he won they called it Mr. Ugly! Jack took it back the next year and two of the three judges had him in first place again. He asked the third judge what was wrong with his flight and the answer was "A profile body model cannot turn like a full body stunt model can," Jacks reply was "That one can." In 1990 Jack took it back for the third time and got some bad air and crashed. I never got to fly my Banshee(k). The members of our local CL Club call a Banshee with Jack's mods a "Bansheek".
Clancy

Still picking away at my Banshee project. Next up is to start to get the hinges installed and have a question.

I'm planning to use Dubro nylon hinges. I don't have enough of the standard size hinges to complete the project. But I do have a bunch of the small size hinges. Maybe the small hinges are really only intended for 1/2a size models.

On a Banshee size model, will the small size Dubro hinges be OK? Since I do have 2 of the larger hinges available, one option is to use those 2 near the control horn and the smaller size out along the flap. Also, the plan shows 3 hinges per flap, but I intend to use 4 per flap.

Thoughts welcome.

Thanks in advance.

Colin

I have used these large hinges, they are OK.  A little soft but OK.   However, I have also used the smaller DuBro the way you mentioned without any issues,  If you use the smaller ones put them in pairs at the tips and near the horn.  Two singles spaced evenly in-between. If you get the bigger ones below, I would still use two at the tips.

https://www.amazon.com/16x28-Pinned-Hinges-Airplane-Replacement/dp/B01E9ZWBDU/ref=sr_1_10?crid=1VPZHO5ZOP9QI&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.LQiNtsu4iLBeqzALttusntmMjKGDq2wm1eDRUALVMSOqy00MrfVea-9eBBK08AzFY31u1DUSr-GBSUplMxAiVvVJx3zsoOiQ3PaMn0Dxj9bToh4D1JKqTYjBsI3viVfs3162JwYlWwQozQNTycW5KnCD_Y4NSCYoFC_hLpvj_AwRXpx0cemUkTCCnGT0lNa1BYB_ZF2ZmQAdLOmCU49GW4Xi1sabTXp4Ne6h4ppkIyD2w_O4gDKMKQp7r9dHqccm0HezbAyiGonW9-2I8XNvPUv67IN8lExEbbxiSixaLBg.77_oJokV9k6ncb40AYFDB9w9XE4IiOinvJUHZW_V4b4&dib_tag=se&keywords=rc+model+airplane+hinge&qid=1766896014&sprefix=rc+mosel+airplane+hinge%2Caps%2C228&sr=8-10

Ken

The design of the SIG Banshee places the centerline of the wing on the engine thrust line. However, the centerline of the stab/elev is close to 3/8" above the thrust line.

Would there be any significant flight performance improvement to lower the stab/elev so it is also centered on the engine thrust line?

Colin

Quote from: Colin McRae on January 10, 2026, 10:35:36 AM
The design of the SIG Banshee places the centerline of the wing on the engine thrust line. However, the centerline of the stab/elev is close to 3/8" above the thrust line.

Would there be any significant flight performance improvement to lower the stab/elev so it is also centered on the engine thrust line?

Colin

I would expect a small performance increase.  My last build was inline and I can see and feel the difference in maneuvers.  Most planes can be trimmed to turn equally, it is just easier with things lines up.  Watch your vertical CG if you have wheels which will most likely be further from the wing.
That is where moving a battery shines vs moving a tank!

Ken

Quote from: Ken Culbertson on January 10, 2026, 01:30:03 PM
I would expect a small performance increase.  My last build was inline and I can see and feel the difference in maneuvers.  Most planes can be trimmed to turn equally, it is just easier with things lines up.  Watch your vertical CG if you have wheels which will most likely be further from the wing.
That is where moving a battery shines vs moving a tank!

Ken

Thx Ken

It was more of a curiosity question as there are a fair number of model designs out there that have the wing on the thrust line, but have the stab/elev slightly above. I was curious if maybe it is good to have it above since it shows up on various designs.

Colin

Progress on my Banshee build has been slow but still inching forward.

I have a new question.

On my current build I am changing 2 basic items compared to a stock Banshee. Moving the wing forward 1.5" and increasing the tail area to 22% of the wing area (60/40 split stab area to elev area). My question has to do with the CG location compared to the stock Banshee.

I had a stock banshee once upon a time and it flew reasonably well with the CG location at 18% of the wing mean chord. Now with the wing moved forward (longer dimension from flap hinge line to elev hinge line) as well as the significantly increased tail area (22% up from the stock 15%), should I keep the 18% MC location or adjust to a different distance?

When the time comes and to minimize overall model weight I will adjust the engine (OS Max-s 35 w/ stock muffler) location for the recommended CG, hopefully minimizing any nose or tail lead that might have to be added after the engine location has been fixed.

I was hoping to see what other builders have used for their CG location where they may have done similar Banshee modifications.

Thanks in advance

Colin


 

Quote from: Colin McRae on May 30, 2026, 09:56:15 AMProgress on my Banshee build has been slow but still inching forward.

I have a new question.

On my current build I am changing 2 basic items compared to a stock Banshee. Moving the wing forward 1.5" and increasing the tail area to 22% of the wing area (60/40 split stab area to elev area). My question has to do with the CG location compared to the stock Banshee.

I had a stock banshee once upon a time and it flew reasonably well with the CG location at 18% of the wing mean chord. Now with the wing moved forward (longer dimension from flap hinge line to elev hinge line) as well as the significantly increased tail area (22% up from the stock 15%), should I keep the 18% MC location or adjust to a different distance?

When the time comes and to minimize overall model weight I will adjust the engine (OS Max-s 35 w/ stock muffler) location for the recommended CG, hopefully minimizing any nose or tail lead that might have to be added after the engine location has been fixed.

I was hoping to see what other builders have used for their CG location where they may have done similar Banshee modifications.

Thanks in advance

Colin


 

Colin I don't think you will have a lot of luck trying to position your engine unless you wait until the airplane is ENTIRELY finished before you drill mounting holes.  The finish itself will change the CG.
To be honest (in over 60 years doing this) I have NEVER checked CG on any new airplane statically before flying it.  It is very difficult to build a standard configuration airplane that is unflyable unless it is absurdly tail heavy due to being extremely overweight to begin with.  If you should be concerned about it being too sensitive you can test fly with your handle spacing set pretty narrow to slow the control input, then space them out to your comfort level.  How it balances in static is unimportant-it's about how it FLIES.  Your first flights should immediately tell you if it's close.   The best way I've found to determine final CG is to observe the glide once the engine quits.  You'd want it to descend just like a well trimmed hand launch glider, ie., sort of flat and slow glide down with the handle held neutral.  If it wants to drop the tail as it slows and start into a stall requiring you to apply some down elevator then it's tail heavy and will require nose weight.  Inversely if it immediately drops the nose and dives requiring up elevator to maintain a level attitude then it's nose heavy.   Once you get the glide trimmed the airplane is in the right cg configuration.   Then you can set the control handle spacing wider or narrower to find the 'feel' that suits you.   That's what you are after in the end-Later there can be tradeoffs in competition trim in minor ways like going more or less nose heavy to change turning characteristics or optics or trim the tracking but that's down the road......

Dave

Quote from: Dave_Trible on May 31, 2026, 07:35:16 AMColin I don't think you will have a lot of luck trying to position your engine unless you wait until the airplane is ENTIRELY finished before you drill mounting holes.  The finish itself will change the CG.
To be honest (in over 60 years doing this) I have NEVER checked CG on any new airplane statically before flying it.  It is very difficult to build a standard configuration airplane that is unflyable unless it is absurdly tail heavy due to being extremely overweight to begin with.  If you should be concerned about it being too sensitive you can test fly with your handle spacing set pretty narrow to slow the control input, then space them out to your comfort level.  How it balances in static is unimportant-it's about how it FLIES.  Your first flights should immediately tell you if it's close.  The best way I've found to determine final CG is to observe the glide once the engine quits.  You'd want it to descend just like a well trimmed hand launch glider, ie., sort of flat and slow glide down with the handle held neutral.  If it wants to drop the tail as it slows and start into a stall requiring you to apply some down elevator then it's tail heavy and will require nose weight.  Inversely if it immediately drops the nose and dives requiring up elevator to maintain a level attitude then it's nose heavy.  Once you get the glide trimmed the airplane is in the right cg configuration.  Then you can set the control handle spacing wider or narrower to find the 'feel' that suits you.  That's what you are after in the end-Later there can be tradeoffs in competition trim in minor ways like going more or less nose heavy to change turning characteristics or optics or trim the tracking but that's down the road......

Dave

Dave, I appreciate the feedback and understand the CG notes you address.

I have built and flown a fair number of established design CL model kits. Banshee, Nobler, Ringmaster, Skyray 35, etc. I do not design my own models. But one thing I have consistently seen is that the CG indicated on the plans is too far back once I get the model in the air. The stock Banshee kit is a great example. The plans show a 'suggested' CG at 25% of the MC (right at the LE of the spar). My past stock Banshee flew best at 18% of the MC which is pretty far north from what was shown on the plans. BTW, my Skyray 35 flies great at 17.5% of the MC, again well north of the CG indicated on the plans.

So now that I am increasing the hinge line spacing and greatly increasing the tail area on my new Banshee (Francherized so to speak) I am inquiring if any builders can help me out that have accomplished 'similar' mods on their SIG Banshee and can offer a suggested CG location as a starting point for me.

And to your point I already plan to completely build the model, finish paint it, and temporarily mount everything before I drill any engine mounting holes.

If I'm unable to get any real-world feedback I will just proceed ahead at 18% of the MC and go from there. Then once in the air, add nose or tip weight as needed.

OK you can't get into trouble with that.  You mentioned the other airplanes you've built and how you felt the Cg specified is too far back.   Usually those designers show a very conservative location to aid more novice pilots.   This makes me curious about your control handle- how wide is your line spacing?  Sounds like overly wide.  I'd start in the 4" range and go from there.   Using something much larger might be an issue for you.

Dave

Quote from: Dave_Trible on June 01, 2026, 09:11:51 AMOK you can't get into trouble with that.  You mentioned the other airplanes you've built and how you felt the Cg specified is too far back.  Usually those designers show a very conservative location to aid more novice pilots.  This makes me curious about your control handle- how wide is your line spacing?  Sounds like overly wide.  I'd start in the 4" range and go from there.  Using something much larger might be an issue for you.

Dave

On my new Banshee build I am upgrading to a 4" bell crank (up from the kit 3"). Then for the eventual maiden I always start the handle spacing to match the crank (4" handle spacing in this case). Then adjust from there based on flight performance as part of the trim process.

Colin

Yes Colin the old DOC is still having fun reading all these posts of people changing control set ups and various things on planes that designers put into action before having kit made.   The only changes I have made on planes is ones designed back in the days I first started control line building and flying.  I had a 1/2A combat wing that would not turn.  I moved cg back on the design until it was unstable.   My brother said move cg back to where design stated for it to be.  Then double area of the elevator.   It worked much better.  Even had a 1/2A stunter I had to do that to.  But I'm glad you are doing things to try and help your flying.  I've known Dave since he was a chubby little kid flying with his Dad.  Any way keep at it.

A bit of stunt lore when modifying or designing Stunt models is often used by Builder/pilots. Here're a few that may be helpful.

1. Try to design or modify with brevity. It's not usually good to overbuild a plane to be able to survive a crash. Overweight stunt ships are more difficult to fly the pattern, harder to trim, and can become a pile of broken parts often more easily than one with a lighter wing loading.

The goal of the builder is first to build an adequately strong structure, without falling down the "Rabbit Hole" by adding too much weight from re-engineering a plan, or kit.

Most often, a stock kit or design built with the goal being to keep the weight reasonable, keep it straight, and properly aligned, with good reliable power, and the "Control Systems heart" made with attention to modern thinking, materials, and strength, will perform as well, or as often may be the case, better than the same design or kit from 25 years ago.

An "Improved" modified build that is heavy, warped, or the control system is flawed is often a sad model. Never performing as well as it might have. There are some Kits or plans that have been improved over the years and written up to where 100's if not 1000's have been built. It's OK to modify these designs from the stock kits or plans. They have been worked over many times over, so you've a good chance for success, but, unless you have the skills to properly build, finish, trim, and find cures for trimming problems you may want to tackle major modifications later. Instead, consider building a competition aircraft from kits or plans that others have been there before you, and have left guides for you to follow. Sport, have at it. We learn the most when we personally follow these builds using the notes from those who went before you. That's if you are wanting to find out why something works or doesn't.

The Banshee and the Twister are some of, but not all of, the better known "Mash-ups", modified, competition, models that fit the above.

2. A good starting location for the CG Is defined by the ratio between the wing/flap, and the stab/elevator areas. So, if your stab/elevator is 26% of the wing area, the rule of thumb says to initially balance at 26% of the Mean Aero-dynamic chord. Not located at the wing-root, but approximately 1/2 span of the panel, (Inboard, and then likewise on the Outboard panel) There are mathematical or graphic ways to do this but, on most designs, with Normal layouts, half span should be close enough. Final CG position is determined during early flight testing. Some like to use the glide quality after the power is removed. Noticing if the nose rises or drops after the engine, or motor stops will give a good indication and direction that the CG should be moved. I like to back it up by checking the quality of my round loops, it shows and can affect your scores if it's off and you're not on your toes.

3. The entire control system is the heart of the stunt ship. In my opinion, there are X number of rules that will make a stunt ship a happy well-trimmed plane. Things to ponder and might be something to consider when building a stunter you plan to compete with, or even just want to have an honest sport flyer is the control system.

Let's start at the bell-crank. The kits from the classic era and before were often 3" Total length. Some were even shorter. Back in the day, most of us had no idea, or concept regarding control systems. Those that did usually kept it a secret. I can think of a handful of what were some of the best pilots through the late 50's to the 90's knew and used the technology we take as common place today, but was groundbreaking, and made a huge difference in our sport. It shows up on some of the plans they drew. Now we see it because we recognize it.

The shorter 3" bell crank coupled with the flap and elevator horns of the day, often made for what was called "Fast or quick" touchy controls. Coupled with a "Hot Rock" handle or something similar and you might call it "Twitchy". It has been, in my experience somewhat fixable though.

It was necessary to drill a new inner hole on the bell-cranks short arm. In the case of the Sig bell crank, the name SIG is cast into the 'crank. we would drill the new hole where it appeared to "Dot" the i in Sig. This gave more torque in the system, The 1/8" dia. music wire was strong enough, but would sometimes act as a spring in the system because under load it would, and sometimes could, bend under load. This was a maddening experience.

Going to arrow shaft pushrods, and later to CF pushrods was a brilliant way to take care of the problem without adding a lot of weight. We wound up with controls that were stable, and smooth but added some weight IMHO when we adopted Spherical Ball links. Over the years, I've gone from using 4 of these links, to only 1, or 2. The place their special action really helps is at the bell crank to Flap Horn pushrod, and there it's mostly beneficial at the Bell crank/Pushrod junction. That's where all the wiggly action takes place. (Yeah, I know there is a formal, correct word to explain the action at that juncture, But Everyone understands "Wiggly"

So next comes the Flap and elevator horns. It turned out these are rather important how they are set up. I know, and it's still true that in the "Corrected geometry control system" I first wrote about back in '91 or 92 on the old CompuServe model airplane forum, that both the flap, and the elevator horns were tilted, based on pushrods meeting at 90 degrees to get equal throws for equal rotation of the Bell crank. In my own observations, and in practice, I've slowly crossed over in how I lay things out.

Howard Rush has laid out his version and did what I wished I had the math skills to do, that is, He developed a nifty computer program that allows one to drop in the numbers and it, in turn, drops out all the numbers, lengths, and angles you need to construct a very good system.

I on the other hand, being a Draftsman, and trained to lay things out graphically, naturally went that direction. Interestingly, this let me take a very good look in a way I understood fairly well. I saw some options. Especially when considering the realities of current modeling tolerances. For instance, what do you imagine the tightest continuous dimension is with our models? .001+/_, .010+/_, .0625+/_ .125+/_ Of these, are there any averages? What most of us can only hope for is, in my opinion, an average of.010" So, Like most things, we wind up making some allowances to get the average that "Hits" closest to the bar.

In the real world, in my opinion, we can, with most wings we use, tilt the horn forward ~9 degrees and it will work pretty well. Now, here's why I still cling to having the stab chord higher than the wings chord, in other words not "In-Line". As a Draftsman, I can match the wing and elevators chord lines so that the elevator horn and the flap horn are parallel, and their preferred locations, (Computed for speed and throw) are at zero degrees to each other at neutral. In other words, it's only the link going forward from the flap horn to the bell crank that requires being tilted forward at 9 degrees. All other connections are at 90 degrees, straight up and down, at neutral. This is giving me what I wanted, within the realities of my building skills.

There's more, but I'm running out of space, Lead outs, Spacing, why 4"+ bell cranks are usually better, Lines, and Handles. That's enough for now.