I don't know, Ed. It looks pretty cool to me.

I dunno.  I wouldn't feel right about changing from a flying stab to a conventional -- it feels too much like an aerodynamic change to me.

What I would do, if I were inclined to build the plane, would be to really tone down the elevator:flap ratio, then make it adjustable so you can tone it down more.  The pivot as designed is behind the stab aerodynamic center, which means that the stab is going to want to flop into more of whatever it is, which in turn means that it's going to be the flaps (and you) holding the thing steady.  So you need to make a really low-slop linkage from stab to flap to avoid hunting.  You probably want the elevator horn as long as possible, and ball links all the way.

Putting the pivot in front of the stab aerodynamic center would tone things down, too, but (again, to me) that's almost as much of a change as the conventional elevator -- it's just better hidden.

If you know what you want to do, but feel you need guidance anyway, just ask on the engineering board for suggestions.  Then wait for all the contradictory guidance, and pick the one that agrees with what you originally intended.

...or you could move the pivot point 1 1/4" forward like the WARNING on the plans Fred Carnes drew recommends.

I think there's just some of these OTS-elligible designs that don't cut the mustard for the discerning modern eye.  Teeny wings, sharp leading edges, minuscule tail feathers -- there's just planes that were fine back in the day that aren't going to be satisfactory today.  As far as I understand it you can't take one of those planes and adjust things until you like it -- so why should you be able to make such a dramatic change as changing a flying tail to a hinged one?

Of course, if all you want to do is fly the thing for sport, or use it's aesthetics with some modern numbers for regular stunt, then it looks like a cool plane!

Agree with Bill Little.  If you change ANY aspect of the original design, then you no longer have an authentic Classic entry.

I think most Classic enthusiast will enthusiastically agree with Mike.

Now, for an interesting exercise, it would be interesting if someone would take the time and build two versions of this thing.  One with the all flying stabilizer, the other with a more conventional horizontal tail/elevators with a slight adjustment (as in increase) in area to determine once and for all any advantage to using an all flying tail for a stunt ship.  (However, based on my own experience and the results of many others, I can almost guarantee what the findings will be.)

Keith

I wonder if building a plug-in tail would save work or multiply it.

I'm not sure if increasing the area going to a hinged tail would be fair -- after all, it's known that bigger tails fly better with flaps.

"Plug in tail".  What is that?  I was not talking about a "plug in tail" nor was I suggesting ways to save or multiply work.  I was only suggesting that it would be an interesting exercise to see what the difference would be with two airplanes of the same basic design, one with an all flying stabilizer and another with a conventional tail arrangement.

Also, this suggestion need not be a question of what is "fair".  I was only suggesting a comparison of two similar airplanes but with different tail configurations.  I was not suggesting that the model with the conventional tail might be considered appropriate for the OTS event.

I only suggested going to a tail configuration with an increased area to compensate for some expected reduced effectiveness to pitch the airplane if the tail using a horizontal tail/elevators if the same area would otherwise be used.

Keith

I think one area where we have made some of the more important improvements, certainly since the OTS & early Classic era is in control system mechanics.  Building the "Nuts" with a 4" 'crank, and a pull-pull system to the stabilator horn would really improve control authority - but the 50% pivot point is still a head scratcher.  Move it forward as suggested on the plans (drawn well after the fact) and it would likely work better but would not be authentic to Sam's original.  I would also consider using a RC Sailplane style horn with aft joiner wire - would offer surer control of that big flipper.

I want to order a set of plans from PAMPA - for the "library"  but like Ed I really am not interested in building a stabilator!