Handle with bias caused crash of my Vector ?

[Steve Helmick]

John Miller's handle, and mine (below) are "Ted Handles". They are kitted by Carl Shoup in Colorado, as shown in the first few pictures. Ted Fancher designed them, and made the first few, then kitted them for a short time. When he bowed out, Carl took up the project, THANKFULLY!

I took these pictures! And I designed and made the jig shown, using a scrap piece of pine and three nails. I drilled the holes with a drillpress, to make the holes square to the surface, and so the nails are a push fit by hand. It's not fancy, but it works perfectly. I assembled the two handles with thick CA, carved and sanded them into a shape that fit my hand,  gave them two coats of epoxy finishing resin, and applied the handle wraps. The wrapping is fishing rod handle wrap, but tennis racket wrap, golf club wrap, etc., all work. I like them very much, and thank Ted and Carl for sharing. The contact information for Carl,  in picture #1 is good.  The kits come in two sizes...Hot Rock and EZ Just, essentially. They're very comfortable and light. Mine weigh right at 2 oz each.

Most of us set the arms as close in as possible (minimum overhang), with the limit being what will fit over our fingers. From there, we use line clips of various lengths to adjust neutral. A set of the standard "paperclip" style clips is included. Jim Lee (see vendor's forum below) makes a clip bender that was designed by Derek Moran. There are alternate methods of making these clips, of course. Tho simple, these work VERY nicely, and are highly recommended.  I have been wondering who designed these clips!  Steve
 

[Marvin Denny]

[quote author=Ted Fancher
However, pretty much none of the message was directed at your T handle concept.  TEd

< Ted it wasn't my "T" concept--- it was your description of positioning the portion of the handle that was held in the hand "90 Degrees" that effectively made the handle a "T" shape.  I only used ti described as a "T" to clarify the portion being held.>

p.s. Marvin, 

I'm sorry you think I'm pontificating on this stuff.  It really isn't my intention to sound like some sort of huffy college perfesser! Tell us how it works.

Ted
[/quote]

  <  Sorry Ted--  I probably used the wrong word  pontificating.  I didn't mean it as it now sounds. I have a simple mind that only engineers can develop. And you are certainly NOT sounding like a"huffy Perfesser"
  I really think we may be  very close to being on the same track anyway, just talking about two different types of bias.  I'm going to take a close look at some recent video of you top guys flying and a really close look at the  handle positions during level and inverted flight.
  No  offence on this end and I hope not on your end.

  Marvin AKA  Bigiron Denny

[Chuck Feldman]

Picture diesect this one please Id parts for clarification of terms.

Chuck

[Chuck Feldman]

OK I'll start it. The eye bolts are used by me to set the elevator at dead level with the aluminum bar set to 90 degrees to the lines. That would not be a bias adjustment. From dead center on the aluminium bar I put the eyebolts equal distance from the center. That is not bias that is sensitivity.Then I fly the model. If to sensitive then I move the eyebolts closer to the center. That still is not bias. Notice the angle of the handle, that matches the motion of my right wrist and the angle is set to be on the center of my wrists motion. Notice that one end of the handle has a longer arm that the other. That has to be because the angle to get the mid position of my wrist motion requires it. This unequal length has no effect on the control movement and is not bias. The handle is really the aluminum bar. The wooden grip is just attached to it. The model flying could dictate futher adjustments with the eyebolt spacing and or length. Example would be to move one eyebolt closer or further from the center and not move the other eyebolt at all. That is a bias adjustment.
Changing the length of a single eyebolt? No! Once I set that I do not go back to it. That makes the position of the elevator higher or lower. The eyebolt length function is to make small adjustments to compensate for differences in the line length.

Chuck

[Larry Cunningham]

Perhaps the easy solution is to switch to the monoline control system. 

L.

"Why is the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that song?" -Steven Wright

[Ted Fancher]

[quote author=Ted Fancher
However, pretty much none of the message was directed at your T handle concept.  TEd

< Ted it wasn't my "T" concept--- it was your description of positioning the portion of the handle that was held in the hand "90 Degrees" that effectively made the handle a "T" shape.  I only used ti described as a "T" to clarify the portion being held.>

p.s. Marvin,  

I'm sorry you think I'm pontificating on this stuff.  It really isn't my intention to sound like some sort of huffy college perfesser! Tell us how it works.

Ted

p.s.  back in the days I was doing the column I did two consecutive articles on handles and "exactly" the subject matter we're discussing here.  That did include some drawings.  Because I'm math challenged I don't try to give any fancy equations or anything, just approached the concepts with illustrations which clearly showed what I was trying to get across.  If someone has access to any of those old columns and could scan and post them it might clear up some of what I'm trying to say.  They were published back in the mid '80s just before I stopped writing the column when I was elected President of PAMPA.


  <  Sorry Ted--  I probably used the wrong word  pontificating.  I didn't mean it as it now sounds. I have a simple mind that only engineers can develop. And you are certainly NOT sounding like a"huffy Perfesser"
  I really think we may be  very close to being on the same track anyway, just talking about two different types of bias.  I'm going to take a close look at some recent video of you top guys flying and a really close look at the  handle positions during level and inverted flight.
  No  offence on this end and I hope not on your end.

  Marvin AKA  Bigiron Denny

Hi Marvin,

NO worries.  It looks like we took turns misunderstanding each other.  Besides, I'm well aware of my reputation for long windedness but really don't know how to make sometimes complicated concepts clear without using a lot of words.  Again, I need some sort of simple drawing program to allow me to sketch out some of these things and then post them.  Our misconnect on the handle concept is the perfect example!

In the olden days when I did the column in Model Aviation I had a drafting table set up full time and it was easy to whip out some simple stuff and mail it off to the magazine with the hard copy of the text.  Let them massage it to fit the magazine page!

No, the description of 90 degree bias I was trying to make was what would happen if you took your basic symmetrical style Hot Rock handle and lengthened the down line enough that at neutral the grip was parallel to the ground.  All the discussion that followed was based on that premise: i.e. the inability to get any down control at all from that position; and the fact that any bias of that sort would make "up" control faster and "down" control slower as the bias was increased; that, with narrow enough spacing and enough bias you can get a control system hooked up so that it is impossible to get all of the down control built into the airplane's on board system, etc.

Ted

[Ted Fancher]

Picture diesect this one please Id parts for clarification of terms.

Chuck

Hey, Chuck.  Thanks a million for such a great picture.  It allow me to illustrate some of the stuff I've obviously failed to get across with my posts.

As far a definition of terms, I'll give it a shot from my perspective.

First, the "grip" is obvious.  It's where you hold onto the handle whatever shape it is.

Second, "bias".  We differ just a bit here although I agree completely with your use of the word when you talk about different line attach points for the up and down lines.  Bias means a divergence from symmetry.  In the case of your handle I would state that there is a bias between the grip and the plane at which the control lines attach to the line attachment bar.  IOW, they are not parallel to one another.  It is important to note that the form of bias in your handle is not the "super bad" bias I address when I speak of adjusting a symmetrical, Hot Rock style, handle so that at neutral elevator the handle is not perpendicular to the ground.

Your handle is what I would grudgingly refer to as an "OK" handle in that it satisfies the need to have the driving mechanism (the line attachment bar) at the proper angle (90 degrees) relative to the control lines (i.e. "square to the on board system). 

My only serious disagreement with the ultimate value of such a handle is related to the last definition of the parts and that is the "overhang".  Overhang is the "arm" or distance from the grip (technically, the hinge point of the wrist) to the to the line attachment point (the bar on your handle).  In your case the down line overhang is roughly twice as long as the up line overhang.

This is exactly what Randy Smith has been addressing in his posts.  It is true that the greater the overhang the more force will be required to deflect the controls against the airloads on the flaps/elevators.  This is why you'll find "most" of the fliers (including me) that win the big ones fly with minimal overhang so as to allow finer input refinements with modest effort. 

Now, let me make it clear that a modest amount of any of these factors can be overcome by a good flier with a well trimmed, properly powered stunt ship.  As Bob Reeves has pointed out, there have been a lot of "Big Ones" won by fliers using handles that are non-symmetrical in many facets.  I think, however, if an historical count could somehow be taken you'd find that the symmetrical type handles have pretty much kicked butt ... on balance ... throughout stunt history.

Now, I haven't looked closely at Orestes' handle but I have spent a lot of time caddying for guys like Paul Walker, David Fitzgerald, Brett Buck and many others who are threats to win big contests.  Every one of those guys uses a handle that looks so much like a Hot Rock they could be clones (in fact, many made from the Ted kits are exactly that ... clones of a Hot Rock with hard point attachments and modest amounts of adjustability built in).  Of course, Paul does fly with some bias in his neutral.  Too bad.  I think he could be a pretty good pilot if he'd just go vertical 

By the way, if you like your handle feel free to tell me thanks but no thanks.  That's the bottom line on all of this tech talk.

Ted

[Steve Helmick]

Since Larry C. brought up Monoline...here's my old monoline handle. The handle itself has no 'bias' (or effect!), but where the knob is placed before takeoff limits the amount of up or down, so that is "bias". Much the same as the "bias" in a 2-line handle for stunt...it gives you more of one at the expense of the other.

Pulling the red knob toward the handle gave 'up" elevator. At neutral, I usually had the knob a little toward the far end, where the line connected. Usually ended up with the knob pushed 'down' (farther toward the model) to lock it into a fast, low "groove".  Going like he!! was fun, but couldn't get enough ST parts to fly except at contests and one Spring shakedown session. Free flight and Stunt was more like 'sport' flying...anytime the mood struck. Speed still beckons, however... Steve

PS: I'm wondering why the safety thong is so darned long!

[Chuck Feldman]

Hello Ted,

Thank you for responding to me and this post. I have no problem with anything you said. Yes I do like my handle it does for me what I designed it too do.
It allows me to have equal (throw) up and down with my wrist. The overhang you speak of is not a problem in fact it is the answer to get equal throw up & down for me. I hope this discussion continues.

Chuck

[George]

Since Larry C. brought up Monoline...here's my old monoline handle. The handle itself has no 'bias' (or effect!), but where the knob is placed before takeoff limits the amount of up or down, so that is "bias". Much the same as the "bias" in a 2-line handle for stunt...it gives you more of one at the expense of the other.

Pulling the red knob toward the handle gave 'up" elevator. At neutral, I usually had the knob a little toward the far end, where the line connected. Usually ended up with the knob pushed 'down' (farther toward the model) to lock it into a fast, low "groove".  Going like he!! was fun, but couldn't get enough ST parts to fly except at contests and one Spring shakedown session. Free flight and Stunt was more like 'sport' flying...anytime the mood struck. Speed still beckons, however... Steve

I remember seeing (on a tape) Dale Kirn's son demo-ing a stunt flight using monoline. One of the things he mentioned was that the lines would twist enough that he needed to re-establish neutral several times by spinning the red knob during level flight. He was used to adjusting it so he just did it in a matter-of-fact way.

George

[Han Slaats]

Don't know what happended on my first attempt at this reply, so I am trying again.

I made some diagrams of handle goemetries to try and understand all that is being said. I have the following observations that I take from these diagrams:

1: almost all geometries exibit larger line movement on the active side (the side we are applying the up or down control), for a given handle deflection. This is due to the fact that the actual pivot point is not in the handle but at the point where the hand joins the wrist. Watch you hand movement closely and you will see what I mean. This means that at the passive side of the handle the line goes slack !. This suggests that the plane will try to yaw around the active leadout until the line tension in the passive line is restored. (Could this be right ??)

2: the handle with equal overhang, but held at a relaxed (biased) position does give less response on down than it does on up !!

3: the handle with built in bias and unequal overhang (line attachement points are vertical) behaves the same for up and down movements; I cannot find from these diagrams confirmation about the the statements made by Randy and Ted about these handles. Incidentally; this is the type of handle I was using when I crashed.

Some of the things I am saying are counter-intuitive, certainly to me, so lets hear your comments.

Han Slaats

[John Sunderland]

Hello Hans!

While I have no doubt you had a bias handle in your hand at the time of the crash, quite often symmetrical alignment of the control system in conjunction with a nose heavy airplane......and a bias handle could be more of the culprit...one accentuating the other so to speak. Then again, its summer, depending on the wind or lack of it, this also could have helped you into Terra fir ma..... or not.

[Allan Perret]

You are over complicating things with various pivots points.  
Nobody flys with their shoulder and elbow locked, pivoting only at the wrist.  
Handle rotation is generated by a combination of all three.  

The input to the planes control system is the total relative movement of the up & down lines to each other.  Your pictures 6 and 7 show that for a given rotation of the handle, the relative movement is the same; 1.6 + .5 for up and .5 + 1.6 for down; 2.1 in both cases.  This will be true so long as the lines attachment points are vertical in the neutral position.  That handle configuration will give equal amounts of up & down control for equal degrees of up & down handle rotation.  Question is can you physically input equal amounts of handle rotation from what is your personal comfortable neutral position, with equal precision and repeatability.  Thats why its different for everybody.   Your incident indicates that you are lacking with the down rotation of handle.  You can gain additional down input by raising the handle higher in your neutral flying position.  Raising the handle higher also gets rid of most if not all of the grip bias.

Try a handle with no grip bias, it helped me.  Will take some adjustment to get comfortable with new handle position, proceed with caution.

[Joe Yau]

It also showed that the overhang setting on the handle will varies from one person to another with different wrist to grip length to get the same feel.

[Ted Fancher]

It is often easy to tell if a stunt flier flies with a  lot of down bias in his handle.  Most likely in outside corners you'll see his flying arm and hand down below his/her beltline in order to get enough down versus up line displacement to deflect the controls sufficiently to perform the corner.

This is not only an ineffective way to fly a precise, controlled corner (way too much physical activity and movement of the handle required just to apply the necessary control input) but doing so also drags the  airplane sideways towards the pilot which adds drag, slows the airplane and "requires" that the arm and handle move back toward the airplane thus reducing line tension and once again forcing the airplane to now fly away from the pilot to regain it path around the circle.  I can't think of many things a pilot can force him or herself to do that is more detrimental to the desired flight path of the airplane.

Inward and outward movement of the handle (toward and away from the airplane) should be minimized to the greatest degree possible (with only a handful of exceptions when the pilot might want to add or subtract energy to the airplane through positive or negative "whipping") so the ship can cleanly follow the desired pitch tracks as it circulates otherwise unaffected about the surface of our flight sphere.

There is a certain amount of latitude in this area for inside maneuvers because the inputs available from the wrist, hand and fingers can be supplemented by elbow and shoulder inputs. These are largely done in the same vertical plane as the hand/finger/wrist inputs so lateral movement of the airplane itself is modest or nonexistent.

This really isn’t an option in outside maneuvers because the elbow only bends one way.

This argues strongly for not throwing away part of the available down control by biasing the handle down at neutral.

Ted

[Ted Fancher]

Don't know what happended on my first attempt at this reply, so I am trying again.

I made some diagrams of handle goemetries to try and understand all that is being said. I have the following observations that I take from these diagrams:

1: almost all geometries exibit larger line movement on the active side (the side we are applying the up or down control), for a given handle deflection. This is due to the fact that the actual pivot point is not in the handle but at the point where the hand joins the wrist. Watch you hand movement closely and you will see what I mean. This means that at the passive side of the handle the line goes slack !. This suggests that the plane will try to yaw around the active leadout until the line tension in the passive line is restored. (Could this be right ??)

2: the handle with equal overhang, but held at a relaxed (biased) position does give less response on down than it does on up !!

3: the handle with built in bias and unequal overhang (line attachement points are vertical) behaves the same for up and down movements; I cannot find from these diagrams confirmation about the the statements made by Randy and Ted about these handles. Incidentally; this is the type of handle I was using when I crashed.

Han,  No, you won't find the overhang issue based on the "deflection" geometry.  The issue with overhang is increased loading to deflect the controls as the overhang gets larger. Whatever the force required to deflect the control surfaces against the airloads it will be multiplied by the length of the overhang.  Again, let's use an extreme to illustrate the concept while recognizing that "modest" amounts of overhang are perfectly acceptable ... to a point.

Consider 30 foot overhangs on the up and down lines.  The first thing logic will tell you is that you aren't strong enough to deflect the controls of an airplane pulling, say 10 or 15   pounds when the arm you are using is that long.  To deflect the handle 45 degrees for a square corner will require pulling the entire airplane toward you a goodly amount inasmuch as the handle arms will be rotated up and in a number of feet.  The strength required to do that is well beyond anything us normal guys could provide. (I'll let some of the math wizards figure out exactly what the load would be and how far "toward" the pilot the airplane would have to move at 45 degrees of handle rotation.  All I know is it'll be a lot foot/pound of torque [increasing as the angle increases] and the airplane will be pulled in a "lot" of feet!

Again, think of the water and poison example from the earlier post.  Sure, thirty feet of overhang is clearly off the charts.  The question is (are): 1.how much poison can you stand in your water and still fly as well (overhang in general will force the pilot to use more muscle to fly a given radius), and; 2. do you really want to load the controls more in down maneuvers than you do in up maneuvers if your goal is to make inside and outside loops and corners of identical radii (longer arms on one end of the handle will bias the load required for a given turn rate making identical inside and outside radii more difficult)?

A quick disclaimer.  In modest amounts none of the "bad" things I've discussed are deal breakers for 90% of the people who simply want to fly stunt planes and have fun while doing so. The other 10% who really want to kick everyone else's butts need only to decide if they want to compromise the consistency of response by accepting certain amounts of these variables built into the only interface they have between themselves and the critter the judges are watching and scoring.  The widespread acceptance of "Modern" Hot Rock styled handles by those pilots tells a large part of the story.

Great discussion.

Ted

Some of the things I am saying are counter-intuitive, certainly to me, so lets hear your comments.

Han Slaats

[Randy Powell]

>>The other 10% who really want to kick everyone else's butts need only to decide if they want to compromise the consistency of response by accepting certain amounts of these variables built into the only interface they have between themselves and the critter the judges are watching and scoring.<<

And then there's Paul Walker. Ever look at his handle?

[Han Slaats]

>>almost all geometries exibit larger line movement on the active side (the side we are applying the up or down control), for a given handle deflection. This is due to the fact that the actual pivot point is not in the handle but at the point where the hand joins the wrist. Watch you hand movement closely and you will see what I mean. This means that at the passive side of the handle the line goes slack !. This suggests that the plane will try to yaw around the active leadout until the line tension in the passive line is restored. (Could this be right ??)<<

Ted,

thanks for your enlightened views and explanations "ad absurdum". We do seem to be getting to some valuable conclusions as to what to do and what to avoid.

Could you also give your thought about what happens when line displacement is not equal on the Up and Down line, which happens with all configurations of handles with overhang.

Related to this question is the issue about moving your arm up and down as you fly. On an Up command, the Up line will move further backward than the Down line moves forward if you only hinge your wrist.
If you now move your hand downwards, so that the arms are at an angle to the lines, this will lengthen the down line relative to the up line and may well be a strategy to maintain equal line tension.


Han

[Allan Perret]

And then there's Paul Walker. Ever look at his handle?

Never seen it, what type is it ?

[Joe Yau]

Never seen it, what type is it ?

In this video clip.. it sure looks like an EZ-just handle.

[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0RCelu6rkP8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0RCelu6rkP8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

[Scott B. Riese]

OK...All info given has been good. I fly with a Bias handle However, I bend my elbow and pull my handle into my body. This relives the bias and gives me control that is for me. AS you see in the video Paul bends his elbow and has bias. ALSO Paul can fly with my handle. Ted, Brett....I think there is a feel to what is comfortable. When I shake hands with someone MY hand is comfortable at a few degrees down, I then have equal movement up and down. NO strain in my arm or wrist.

I think a handle WILL improve your CONTEST flying. As a sport flyer...air is good .....ground is bad. GET handle time...be comfortable....relax

OH TED...I know this subject is one of your lets say...*&^%)#@.   I have had a lession from you on your technique and I just can't change..my bad.
 
GREAT POST BY ALLLLLL


Scott no more trophies  Riese

[Ted Fancher]

>>almost all geometries exibit larger line movement on the active side (the side we are applying the up or down control), for a given handle deflection. This is due to the fact that the actual pivot point is not in the handle but at the point where the hand joins the wrist. Watch you hand movement closely and you will see what I mean. This means that at the passive side of the handle the line goes slack !. This suggests that the plane will try to yaw around the active leadout until the line tension in the passive line is restored. (Could this be right ??)<<

Ted,

thanks for your enlightened views and explanations "ad absurdum". We do seem to be getting to some valuable conclusions as to what to do and what to avoid.

Could you also give your thought about what happens when line displacement is not equal on the Up and Down line, which happens with all configurations of handles with overhang.

Sure, Han.  Be glad to.

First of all, if your handle needs to be "biased" in this manner there is something else wrong that should be corrected.  The classic reason for having the lines attached at different distances (from the "center" of the handle vertically) is to achieve equal inside and outside turns.  The theory being (correctly, as far as it goes) that increasing the "arm" of the handle in the direction of the poorer turn will increase the amount of control deflection resulting from a given handle input.

Guys, if the airplane isn't turning equally inside and outside (and the handle is vertical at neutral flap/elevator, sorry 'bout that but it is a fact that tilting the handle at neutral will change the response rate) there is an aerodynamic reason why.  The correct fix is to determine what is causing the unequal turn and correct it.  Generally speaking on an otherwise straight airplane the flap/elevator neutral will need to be adjusted. Biasing the up and down lines at the handle simply masks the problem and doesn't correct it.  Plus, it adds a few other tiny kinks that you can well do without.

Such as: large amounts of bias in this regard changes the feel of the airplane when the controls are in neutral because -- although both lines are carrying an equal share of the load (line tension) -- if one line is attached further away from the center of the grip that line will be pulling harder "about" (i.e. around) the handle's axis of rotation.  Ergo, if the up line is attached a half inch further from the handle center the torque about the center will be an additional 1/2" X the load on each line.  If each line is carrying 10# of pull and the down line is at 1.5 inches, the torque applied is 15# in that direction.  If the up line is at two inches the torque applied will be 20#.  The differential in torque will be five pounds trying to rotate the handle in the down direction.

The bottom line is that biasing the up and down arm lengths will accomplish what you want to accomplish.  The problem is it doesn't correct the underlying problem and, because it is --once again -- a bandaid it brings with it just another tiny bit of baggage a top flier can do without.  I've said it a bazillion times.  Winning big in stunt is primarily the result of taking "details" seriously.  Every little "compromise" when added together can make the difference between the big trophy and polite applause for coming in sixth.

Related to this question is the issue about moving your arm up and down as you fly. On an Up command, the Up line will move further backward than the Down line moves forward if you only hinge your wrist.
If you now move your hand downwards, so that the arms are at an angle to the lines, this will lengthen the down line relative to the up line and may well be a strategy to maintain equal line tension.

Han, I think I'll address this comment with a statement rather than an answer.  All of the above comments should be irrelevant.  The vast majority of upper echelon fliers limit the amount of arm and hand movement to the greatest degree possible, primarily using small wrist and finger movements to fly the complete pattern.  Again, there are exceptions but they are few and far between.

The last thing a pilot should be doing is anything that makes a stunt ship do anything other than pitch up and down at the appropriate moments.  All of the control in other than the pitch axis is (should be) supplied by the control lines tethering it to the hemisphere in which it must fly.  IN other words, mother nature makes it fly at the ends of the lines and the pilot's only job is to direct it to the correct locations on the hemisphere. 

Any time the arm moves especially at the shoulder the airplane, by virtue of the tehter, must come with it.  Every sideways movement that results absorbs the energy you've spent so much time tuning into your powertrain.  No, not a lot but more than you can afford to lose if, like me, you need all the advantages you can get to beat more talented natural fliers. In addition, those sideways movements go both ways, adding tension as you put control into the ship and giving up tension when you return to neutral. And, finally, sideways movement will cause yawing which is among the more detrimental things you can do to your pattern.

I will make some exception for using the elbow in inside maneuvers.  Try it and you'll note that you can pretty much go to 45 degrees of elbow movement with very modest motion toward the pilot.  This, by the way, is a large part of the issue that those who complain about unequal up and down wrist movements when arguing for a down bias in their handles don't consider. The elbow is a perfectly effective multiplier of "up" wrist inputs while there is no equivalent available for down inputs.

Finally, one last attempt to convince people that the vertical handle set-up is not only desirable but demonstrably superior.  The reality is that the handle is an integral part of the mechanical system by which we fly our tricks.  The handle angularity is every bit as pertinent and important as is that of the bellcrank and control horns that we all spend a lot of time and effort (and sometimes some pretty big bucks) to get set up as accurately as we can measure.  To put that effort into the airborne system and then attach a handle that is eight to 15 degrees cattywampus make zero logical sense.

The reason I didn't address your question about moving the arm and so forth is that the only thing that is variable in our control system is the human element.  There are just to many variation of human physiology to try to address the differences and try to make a case for everybody using a custom made mechanical system that will somehow overcome any problems.  The proper approach is to make the mechanical system as close to perfect and symmetrical in response as we can and then allow the human adaptability to adjust to what is right.

No, as many have suggested, you don't have to do that to win if you're really, really good or if the competition is modest.  If you're not a great pilot and the competition is really really good it really behooves you not to compromise your equipment but, rather, to optimize your use of the fight"stuff".

Again, just my opinion, but I do sort of feel strongly that there is some truth there.

Ted


Han

[Ted Fancher]

From my previous post:

No, as many have suggested, you don't have to do that to win if you're really, really good or if the competition is modest.  If you're not a great pilot and the competition is really really good it really behooves you not to compromise your equipment but, rather, to optimize your use of the fight"stuff".

Actually, I meant to say the "right" stuff but it came out too good to change.

Ted

[Ted Fancher]

OK...All info given has been good. I fly with a Bias handle However, I bend my elbow and pull my handle into my body. This relives the bias and gives me control that is for me. AS you see in the video Paul bends his elbow and has bias. ALSO Paul can fly with my handle. Ted, Brett....I think there is a feel to what is comfortable. When I shake hands with someone MY hand is comfortable at a few degrees down, I then have equal movement up and down. NO strain in my arm or wrist.

I think a handle WILL improve your CONTEST flying. As a sport flyer...air is good .....ground is bad. GET handle time...be comfortable....relax

OH TED...I know this subject is one of your lets say...*&^%)#@.   I have had a lession from you on your technique and I just can't change..my bad.
 
GREAT POST BY ALLLLLL

Shoot, Scott! 

I'll just have to work on you again.  Maybe hypnosis ...

Ted


Scott no more trophies  Riese

[Ted Fancher]

O.K. Dennis.  One last chance. 

I would still like to hear your rebuttal about the affects of a (tilted handle at neutral) bias on the control handle with respect to the extreme example I suggested ... i.e. tilted so that neutral flap/elevator is achieved with the handle tilted 90 degrees down.  Then work backwards to explain why a little bias is better than adapting the human element to overcome the bias thus built into the system.

Have a great holiday and hi to the family!

Ted

[Scott B. Riese]

TED and Others.

I've been thinking about this subject for a few days and I've come up with something that maybe relevant. I see the logic in all that have posted. However, I'm just talking about holding the handle at what I call ZERO/Neutral. My Bell crank is at zero, with the flaps and elevator, my lines are equal, I have the same input up and down, I'm comfortable. NOW my HAND has about 8 degrees down feel. What I'm saying is MY hand. If I put my wrist at zero I have less control (input) up then I do down (over controlled). I hope you can get the just of what I'm saying. I still feel there has to be a comfort level to each flier. What works for Sam may not work for Steve.

OH.....I need to start trying the hard point handle. I still use cable.   

Thank you for your time. 

[John Miller]

I don't know about others, but I find i do not just use just my wrist to make control input.

When giving up, I use my elbow, and fine tune with my wrist.

When giving down, I use my wrist first, and add some elbow action.

The relaxed grip is totally a non function for me.

I suppose that learning on an Easy Just is part of the reason I feel most comfortable with an upright handle.

[Brett Buck]

>>The other 10% who really want to kick everyone else's butts need only to decide if they want to compromise the consistency of response by accepting certain amounts of these variables built into the only interface they have between themselves and the critter the judges are watching and scoring.<<

And then there's Paul Walker. Ever look at his handle?

   Actually, I have and I have flown his airplane. His tilt is only slightly off of mine.

     Brett

[Randy Powell]

>> Actually, I have and I have flown his airplane. His tilt is only slightly off of mine. <<

About 5 Degrees?   

[Guy B Jr]

I am just used to using handles similar to the Hot Rock. Would someone please explain what "overhang" is? I am planning on buying some new handles and am enjoying this discussion by the "masters". I just want to make sure I understand it correctly. Thanks.

[Neal Beekman]

I crashed my Vector due to a change of mind , or a Brain Fart.

[Ted Fancher]

I am just used to using handles similar to the Hot Rock. Would someone please explain what "overhang" is? I am planning on buying some new handles and am enjoying this discussion by the "masters". I just want to make sure I understand it correctly. Thanks.

Guy,

Go about 1/3 of the way to the top of this thread and check out the picture of Chuck Feldman's handle and some subsequent responses to his post.  "Overhang" is the length of the "arms" that extend from the "grip" of the handle to where the lines are attached (or, in Chuck's case) where the bar to which the lines are attached.  In Chuck's case the overhang on the "down" line arm  is about twice as long as the overhang of the "up" line's arm.

The result of increased overhang is an increase in force required to make a given control input.

Ted Fancher

[Ted Fancher]

I'm probably going to regret posting this and it should probably be the start of a separate thread--but, here goes.

All the talk about the individual "Human" differences making a biased handle more appropriate for some fliers doesn't ring entirely true to me.  I don't dispute there are individual differences in bone structure, etc. (although I question how much different we are) but I don't believe that is the primary thing that makes some think a biased handle is better "for them".

I encourage each of you to go to Will Hubin's great series of in flight pictures from the team trials thread.  These are pictures of some of the very best fliers in the country if not the world.  If you look past the airplane in each and everyone of those shots you'll note that the flier's hand is located somewhere between the flier's upper belly and and his chin (note that the guy who won the whole magilla is the guy whose hand is near his chin in level flight--just about five feet above the ground!  This is especially notable in the pix of airplanes in upright flight (even a lot of really, really good guys distort their posture when inverted--most likely because we all learn to fly upright first and learning to fly inverted was a challenge we met in a variety of ways not all of which are pretty to watch!)

Note also that essentially all of them (save Sparky) also have their elbow bent so their hand is closer than an arm's length from their body. Hmmmmm, does that turn on that little light bulb over your head?

No matter how you currently hold your hand, just stand up now, place your hand level with your chest with your elbow slightly bent. Close your fist around a broom handle or long dowel and hold it so it is vertical.  Now flex only your wrist so that the stick is tilted "down" seven to 10 degrees.  Think of this "relaxed" position as "neutral" elevator.  Now, leaving your arm in the same position, give your handle another 25 or 30 degrees of "down" elevator.  My bet is you can't do it.

In order to have any wrist generated "down" control from a relaxed neutral wrist position the handle must be held lower relative to the fliers body (and to the five foot level flight elevation).  EAch of the fliers I've discussed in this and other threads who had dramatic problems with outside maneuvers with airplanes perfectly capable of good outsides when flown by yours truly flew with their handle held at stomach level or below and flew with the "relaxed/tilted/biased" handle setting.  Each of them could be seen attempting to fly outside corners by dramatically lowering the arm, hand and handle well below their waist in an attempt to get the darn critter to turn outside.

None of those flier's pictures are in the Team Trials thread.

No, it's not impossible to fly well with a relaxed grip and a lowered handle position in level flight.  However, I think you'll look long and hard at pictures such as Will's before you'll find many examples of such postures with follow up pictures holding the big trophies.

Pretty much all of the really good fliers don't do anything to make their job harder.  Pretty much all of them fly with their handles held in front of the upper torsos and have the handle pretty darn close to vertical.  That's got to say something about the subject.

All right, I'm hiding in the bunker.  Fire away. 

Ted

[Randy Powell]

Ted,

Your absolutely right (now admit it, that was a shock).   

If you hold your hand directly in front of you and chest high (more or less) and hold you hand so that fictive broom handle is vertical, then you can get pretty much equal up and down control by rotating your wrist. Since your wrist is also bent, like your elbow, it allows you a better range of motion.  This is basic human kinesiology. You position muscles and joints to obtain the maximum easy movement. I completely agree that this is the best way, mechanically, to go.

If, however, you hold your arm more or less straight out in front of you, particularly if your body is rotated slightly away from directly facing the plane (as you see often at contests), then you simply can't get a full range of motion for "up" control if you use a handle with a vertical grip. It's just the way the wrist is constructed. The position requires that your wrist is in line with your arm and more or less locked so that you can't really get the rotational motion you can get with your elbow and wrist bent. I think this is the source of a lot of comment about the need to have a slightly canted forward handle. It had more to do with body position than with preference. I absolutely agree that the first description is the best. It just provides more precise control because the motion of rotating your wrist is so much easier. That's why, after years of having you talk about this, I built a vertical handle and changed how I flew. I pulled my hand in to 12-18" from my chest (for me to have my hand at about 5' off the ground, my hand is just in front of my sternum). With my hand directly in front of me and insuring that I am squarely facing the plane in maneuvers, it got a lot easier to fly precisely.

But for those still holding their arm more or less straight out with no real elbow or wrist bend, a canted handle is just about required. And I think that it makes things much more difficult overall.

[RandySmith]

""The result of increased overhang is an increase in force required to make a given control input.

Ted Fancher ""

Absolutely correct! which is what I told the person who started this thread, and about a 100 others
Now the BIG problem...when the wind blows...the pressure increases dramatically on the leg that has the greater overhang much more than it does on the shorter arm. And if the winds get high enough, you will not be able to turn the plane. I am positive this is exactly what happened to Sparky in the TTs when the wind came up. Sparky was flying very very well and had nice flat 5 ft bottoms, when the higher winds started to blow his ship got lower on the outside pullouts. It didn't seem to me to be any pilot error of Sparky's, just the greatly added pressure that happened when the winds came up and saw a nice overhang bias!!
To compound this problem add the tilted handle effect and you have a recipe for a potential crash that is out of your control....Yea I know it doesn't happen all the time, but I have seen it over and over and over for dozens of years.

You can do yourself a favor and at least spend some time trying the square handle setup out (equal overhang and square to the plane)

Randy

[Peter Ferguson]

I love Hans' illustrations, now if we can just assign some variables to them we can formulate some equations.  . This is very good!  I'm surprised it hasn't been published before.

[Randy Cuberly]

OK....
I was convinced I was going to stay out of this but there seems to be one very important factor that I haven't seen mentioned...unless I just missed it.  This is after all one of the most "Wordy" threads I've seen yet ( No I'm not picking on you Ted...well maybe I am.) so it's possible someone else mentiond this and I missed it but here goes anyway.
I noticed in the little video of Paul Walker that like me (hey I actually do something like Paul) He does not grip the handle like a tennis racket, but basically holds it in the forward part of his hand...actually more fingers than palm grip.
I had decided a long time ago that this gave me the most freedom of movement and the least bias between up and down motions.  Also with the slightly more relaxed grip fine motor control functions (in your hand not the airplane) are faster and more precise.
Holding the handle like this makes a straight up and down position with no handle bias the most natural position.
Those people who fly with the "tennis racket" style grip with the hand tighter around the handle will probably find the biased grip more comfortagble.  This is a guess of course because I've tried to fly like this and cannot!  Too much muscle memory I suppose, but I've seen some folks like Lou Wolgast that seem to adapt to just about anything.
This of course does not consider the overhang bias which in my opinion can be used as a trimming tool for airplanes that are more sensitive in one direction of turn than the other (and do not have an adjustable elevator) as well as bias to the center of the grip.  This is of course irrespective of neutral position of the handle which will certainly be affected by changing the overhang of one end of the handle.
I typically fly with fairly slow controls and do not really notice any difference in small increments of overhang adjustment.

I see different folks flying with what I consider really wierd handle setups that seem to work for them so...more power ....


Randy Cuberly

[Ted Fancher]

I love this thread! 

Ted

[Ted Fancher]

OK....
I was convinced I was going to stay out of this but there seems to be one very important factor that I haven't seen mentioned...unless I just missed it.  This is after all one of the most "Wordy" threads I've seen yet ( No I'm not picking on you Ted...well maybe I am.) so it's possible someone else mentiond this and I missed it but here goes anyway.
I noticed in the little video of Paul Walker that like me (hey I actually do something like Paul) He does not grip the handle like a tennis racket, but basically holds it in the forward part of his hand...actually more fingers than palm grip.
I had decided a long time ago that this gave me the most freedom of movement and the least bias between up and down motions.  Also with the slightly more relaxed grip fine motor control functions (in your hand not the airplane) are faster and more precise.
Holding the handle like this makes a straight up and down position with no handle bias the most natural position.
Those people who fly with the "tennis racket" style grip with the hand tighter around the handle will probably find the biased grip more comfortagble.  This is a guess of course because I've tried to fly like this and cannot!  Too much muscle memory I suppose, but I've seen some folks like Lou Wolgast that seem to adapt to just about anything.
This of course does not consider the overhang bias which in my opinion can be used as a trimming tool for airplanes that are more sensitive in one direction of turn than the other (and do not have an adjustable elevator) as well as bias to the center of the grip.  This is of course irrespective of neutral position of the handle which will certainly be affected by changing the overhang of one end of the handle.
I typically fly with fairly slow controls and do not really notice any difference in small increments of overhang adjustment.

I see different folks flying with what I consider really wierd handle setups that seem to work for them so...more power ....


Randy Cuberly

Hi Randy,

I'll go quite a ways further and state that any flier who grips the handle in the palm of his hand (the tennis grip) is giving away the most valuable source of maneuver refinement at his/her disposal--the fingers.  Once again, I don't believe you'll find many top level pilots who grip their handle in the palm.  It's more like a good golf grip.  No firmer than necessary and in the fingers.

Another story ... sorry.

Another great stunt innovation was the result of the very clever mind of Bob Baron.  He, I believe, was the primary developer of the adjustable control that is the heart of pretty much every serious stunt handle since; the ubiquitous bar with sliding adjustable up and down line attachment points and even a certain amount of in-flight neutral adjustment.  It was brilliant!

And, like Bobby Hunt's handle I "had" to have one.  When Gene Martine made his versions available I got one immediately.

The handle was very much like a hot rock in terms of grip size and naturally "square" (designed to be used with a vertical handle at neutral).  What was very different from the Hot Rock was that the "arms"--the ends of the "U" to which the line attach bar were attached were missing.  Instead, there were just two bolts that went through the grip and to which the attach bar was affixed.

Well, I flew a bunch of flights with this great new handle and was seriously disappointed.  The same plane I'd been flying very well seemed to have a mind of its own when it came to pull outs:  high/low/perfect; perfect/low/high totally random and the angles at which it exited corners were all different as well.

After several flying session filled with frustration I finally decided to give it up and go back to my old Hot Rock.  Ta da! everything was instant back to normal.  There was, however, something that immediately jumped out at me from the very first flight back on the Hot Rock.  All of a sudden I felt things I had never noticed before.  Where my index and pinky fingers touched the arms of the Hot Rock I was suddenly aware of the pressures I applied with those fingers to the arms to "refine" corner sizes and pullout angles. The Baron handle didn't have a surface against which the top and bottom of those fingers could do the work they'd done for so many years and the airplane, as a result, wasn't getting the refined inputs it was used to getting.  The patterns fell apart.

Long story short; I went home that very day; got out the Baron Handle and disassembled it.  I then added "arms" to cover the bolts just about as long as the arms on the Hot Rock and spaced "identically" to the Hot rock so that they touched the index and pinky fingers exactly the same as the Hot Rock.  The result was a "nearly" perfect Bob Baron adjustable Hot Rock.  I used that for many years including a couple of Walker Cup wins and two team trials and WCs.

At that last WC in Shanghai I caddied a lot for Mr. PW.  That's when I noticed his hard point--essentially Hot Rock shaped--handle.  I knew that more so than anyone save perhaps Bob Baron, Paul never did anything without a good reason.  Not being as smart as Paul but having no shame whatsoever, I immediately pictured a marriage of the Baron adjustabililty and the Walker hard point.  Thus was born the "Ted" handle which is a total rip-off of the bright ideas of two of stunt's greatest minds.

I guarantee it's worth the twenty or thirty bucks it costs for any stunt flier who wants to be the best he can be to try one out.  Unless he/she thinks they know more about this stuff than Bob and Paul.  I sure didn't but I haven't used anything but a Ted handle since the wedding.

Ted

[Randy Cuberly]

Hmmmmm,
Well I also have used nothing but the "TED" Handle since I saw you flying with it many years ago.  I have about a dozen of the ones made by Carl Shoup.
I have a couple of the "Big Ones" however that I can't seem to use.
May be exactly what you described in your post.  No finger contact with the ends.

Randy Cuberly

[Ted Fancher]

Hmmmmm,
Well I also have used nothing but the "TED" Handle since I saw you flying with it many years ago.  I have about a dozen of the ones made by Carl Shoup.
I have a couple of the "Big Ones" however that I can't seem to use.
May be exactly what you described in your post.  No finger contact with the ends.

Randy Cuberly

Hi Randy,  I'll bet you're exactly right!

Ted

[RC Storick]

I had a low pull out at the team trials. Scrapped the rudder and broke a prop. Randy Smith said it was because my handle was bias. I said no way was my handle bias. Well while talking on the phone I went to the car and got the handle out and looked at it and sure enough. The handle I had become accustom to using had a 1/4 inch bias on the down side.

It was explained to me as the wind picks up more stick pressure was applied to the down side. Meaning I had to put more input to the handle to get it to turn the same.   The bulb came on. I wont be using my old handle any longer.

[john e. holliday]

I been watching this thread for some time now and trying to think of something to say without sounding like the jerk that I am.  It is not the handle that causes crashes.  Yes I changed handles at Tulsa last year and lost an airplane.  It was not the handles fault.  It was my fault as I had not used that handle in a while.  I fly most of the time by sight and not by feel of the airplane.  I have used the hard point handle, but, keep going back to the regular handles with all kinds of adjustments that confuse me at times.   When I get a set up that works I try to keep it that way.  Myself, I am to blame for my crashes and not the handle.

I hear of getting the timing down and engine runs as well as other stuff.  I guess what I am saying is get used to the equipment in all kinds of conditions.  Having fun,  DOC Holliday

[RandySmith]

Hi Doc

Of course you are correct, a handle cannot fly an airplane, so it cannot cause the crash, however here is the problem with your statement, It is a fact that in certain condition if you are using a handle with overhang so extreme,(over 1\4 inch) it will be impossible to turn the ship if winds are high enough. In some circumstances you cannot put enough muscle into the handle to turn the plane in time! You can't just "get use" to that in all conditions
So it maybe best to say this,it is the "Choice" of handles (pilots choice) that can and do, cause crashes, and it is about impossible to "get use" to a handle with a large amount of overhang bias when the winds are changing quickly and blowing hard. The amount of force you have to put into the side with much more overhang is just too variable to fly an accurate pattern.
So bottom line is it all comes down to pilot error, some times we don't know, what we don't know.

Regards
Randy

[John Sunderland]

 Too much CG forward, and misalligned controls can be part of the problem. For example, a stock Nobler with a 9 1/2oz engine in the nose turns quite willingly and quickly outside but requires significantly more handle input sooner to execute an inside turn of the same radius and height. In this instance flap size blanketing the effects of the elevator in combination with nose heavy and misalligned controls is the problem. It would be exacerbated using a handle with built in cant forward and to much overhang. I have flown lots of my friends planes and found that many are to much positively stable and depending on surface size and placement relative to each other in combination with missalligned flaphorn to elevator horn and often set without the bellcrank in the neutral position. You get a plane that turns willingly one direction, but not the other, often requiring input well ahead of the intended change of direction.

[Chuck Feldman]

I have thought about this thread for days. I have concluded that there are two basic types of handles for us to choose from.
They are OPEN. aka teds,hotrock, ezjust, hunts, kaz and many others.
Closed type, Aka Morris, brodak, feldman and others.

Here is my point; overhang can exist on the open type handle, AK Hunt has a longer bottom arm.

On the closed type handles there is no overhang because the lines are connected to the bar. The handle that is behind the bar cannot be called overhang and only influence's the hand position.

[Ted Fancher]

I have thought about this thread for days. I have concluded that there are two basic types of handles for us to choose from.
They are OPEN. aka teds,hotrock, ezjust, hunts, kaz and many others.
Closed type, Aka Morris, brodak, feldman and others.

Here is my point; overhang can exist on the open type handle, AK Hunt has a longer bottom arm.

On the closed type handles there is no overhang because the lines are connected to the bar. The handle that is behind the bar cannot be called overhang and only influence's the hand position.

Sorry, Chuck.  Have to disagree.

The overhang is the distance from the point of rotation (really the wrist for most folks) and where the control lines attach to the handle.  Makes no difference if the attachment point is at the end of a simple arm (like a hot rock) or on a bar attached to that arm.

Again, think in extremes and the problem becomes immediately clear.  Think of a "closed type handle" that has the attachment bar positioned five feet from the grip. Every time you give control input you're going to rotate that bar toward you and as you do so you'll be pulling that airplane toward you.  45 degrees of up control will require pulling the airplane toward you a couple of feet. 

Now, remember that that airplane is pulling some 20 or so pounds due to centrifugal force.  As you rotate the five foot long handle to 45 degrees every degree is going to increase the "arm" against which that force is fighting your control input.  I'll leave it to our math wizards to tell you how much torque you'll have to apply to get that 45 degrees of deflection but my bet is most of us aren't strong enough to do so. In addition, to make a square corner in a half second or so your going to have to pull that ship toward you--all 75 or so pounds of it-- and then return the handle to neutral.  A square eight will be sort of like 18 75# wrist curls in about 15 or so seconds.  Maybe Governor Ahnold could do that.  I sure couldn't.

Overhang is a very real factor of handle design.  Randy's comments are on the money although I'm not sure how much overhang and how much wind would result in a fatal outcome for any individual's pride and joy.

Ted

[RandySmith]

"Overhang is a very real factor of handle design.  Randy's comments are on the money although I'm not sure how much overhang and how much wind would result in a fatal outcome for any individual's pride and joy.

Ted"

Hi Ted

I am sure this will vary from plane to plane, much of it depending on weight, But I can offer this, at Muncie a few years back and at a few of the Florida contest, the winds we flew in were 12 MPH to 22 MPH, I had my MNT handle set up with about 3/16 more overhang than I normally fly with (close to a Hot Rock position), It took all I could give to make the pullouts, even then many were at the 2 foot level, and had near crashes, The line tenion was very very high as the wind kited and whipped the airplane on the outer corners of the square eight. I pulled the adjustment back 3\16 inch and it was a much much easier plane to fly in high winds, The corners were much easier to turn, and the overall handle "stick pressure" went down dramatically, it was more like flying in 5 MPH winds. I have done this dozens of times over the years with mine,and several other people's  setups.

Without the overhang adjustments it would indeed be almost impossible to fly in some of the high wind conditions we face. Not to mention how much easier it is to "tune" the handle to help you increase the performance level of flying your stuntship.
There is just no comparision on how much easier it is to fly in all conditions with a proper setup handle, and an airplane that is not nose heavy.

Regards
Randy

[Ted Fancher]

"Without the overhang adjustments it would indeed be almost impossible to fly in some of the high wind conditions we face. Not to mention how much easier it is to "tune" the handle to help you increase the performance level of flying your stuntship.
There is just no comparision on how much easier it is to fly in all conditions with a proper setup handle, and an airplane that is not nose heavy.

Regards
Randy"

Hi Randy,

Sounds like you and I have to start the "church of the redeemer handle".  Yup, there is absolutely no question that handle design has as many physical "principles" as does the aerodynamics by which the airplanes fly.  Ideally the handle will be right with respect to those principles and any "adjustment" that have to be made will be by the human attached to it. Ted

Randy, an edited p.s.  Bless you for the comment about "nose heavy airplanes in the wind".  I actually missed it the first few times I read your post.  Yeah, handle overhang makes things tough but nose heavy airplanes are almost a total deal breaker in really high winds if (more likely when) they wind up.  The faster they go the more the nose wants to swing away from the radius of turn, the more control it takes to make them stay at the desired radius, which increases G loads and the tendency for the nose to swing away again as a result starts the whole "dog chasing it's tail" scenario to start all over again.

None of this stuff is "Black Magic" and all of it is very real.

[Kim Mortimore]

Ted,

Well, looks like I'm a convert to the church of the redeemer handle.  Having read so many posts by yourself and others advocating uprightness in how we handle planes (sorry, that was bad--the Devil made me do it  ), I decided to try abandoning my downcast ways (eegad), and give verticality a shot last weekend.  I was expecting discomfort and a lengthy acclimatization process, but was pleasantly surprised to find that it took less than one flight to start getting the hang of it, with noticeable improvement wherever Down control or just holding level inverted were involved.  I'm guessing that upcoming trips to the field will be especially productive, and I'm looking forward to practicing my new religion.  

BTW, thanks for your email reply to my engine question.

Kim Mortimore