Author Topic: Hey Mark! Thanks for the Twister. Uh, Flight Streak (Read 22835 times)

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #100 on:** October 02, 2011, 03:22:06 PM »

I was thinking of embedding a really thin wheel in the canopy, as a joke.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #101 on:** October 11, 2011, 06:15:37 PM »

Primered, at least the acrylic part. Imperfect, but it's more than good enough for a Flight Streak. I'm trying out "Miller-Prime" acrylic primer, because it's white and I can tell when I'm sanding through it! It has a couple of spots where the adhesion isn't perfect -- I hope that's from not cleaning things well; if it's from some other cause I may have one ugly airplane in a month or two.

Now I'm gonna squirt on one coat of Rustoleum white primer for cover, then Rustoleum Gloss Protective Enamel white for a base coat, with red for trim (and if the red doesn't match the film covering -- cest la vie). Then it'll be graphics, decals, and clear coat over the decals, and away I'll go!!

Oh -- and a tank. A short and fat tank. If I'm doing the math right, 2-1/2 ounces on an LA 25 or an FP 20 should get me through the whole pattern with fuel to spare -- possible enough fuel to spare that I'll overrun.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #102 on:** October 12, 2011, 09:43:06 AM »

So, to sum up, you took a plane that you were supposed to just fly the heck out of and instead, cannibalized it for parts, built a new plane that you are putting a ton of effort into and will make pretty, right?

So, I still have a Banshee with your name on it.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #103 on:** October 12, 2011, 10:31:17 AM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on October 12, 2011, 09:43:06 AM

So, to sum up, you took a plane that you were supposed to just fly the heck out of and instead, cannibalized it for parts, built a new plane that you are putting a ton of effort into and will make pretty, right?

Now, that's a rather extreme way of putting things. There isn't a part of that plane that doesn't have at least some of the original wood in it. I've just done some repairs here and there.

Quote

So, I still have a Banshee with your name on it.

Yea, too bad you couldn't go to the Follies (even without the Banshee). Saturday was good, and I rather suspect that Sunday was a lot better than the weather reports were predicting.

I've got an engine that may work for that. And I promise that I won't touch a hair on its little head, unless I feel like it.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #104 on:** October 12, 2011, 10:38:20 AM »

Hey, rip it to shreds and rebuild it if you like. The point here was to get you a plane that you could PRACTICE on. We already know you have building skills. The Banshee has been hanging on my shop wall for 12 years. My son last flew it when he was 15. Seem to fly OK then, but it has been hanging on the wall a long time. Probably need to be recovered (or at least patched here and there), but it flies.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #105 on:** October 13, 2011, 04:12:32 PM »

No runs! Woo hoo! (Simple pleasures for simple minds).

(Russel, if you're following this, I've got one coat of primer on this with almost complete coverage of the various colors of spots in the sanded white primer. So -- Rustoleum metal primer covers pretty well. I guess you can't get coverage _and_ gloss).

Russell Shaffer · « **Reply #106 on:** October 13, 2011, 05:26:42 PM »

Actually, you really can get both coverage and gloss and in only one coat. It's called "dipping". Never seen it done on an airplane, though.

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #107 on:** October 13, 2011, 05:33:58 PM »

Russell,,
NO

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #108 on:** October 13, 2011, 06:44:12 PM »

Ooh! Ooh! http://www.plastidip.com/home_solutions/Plasti_Dip

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #109 on:** October 14, 2011, 10:45:46 AM »

Tim,
by all means, go ahead,, Heck they say that beginner is the most fun anyway, and with this TANK your going to dip,, It will help you stay there where its fun forever,,

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #110 on:** November 11, 2011, 06:02:50 PM »

OK. Maybe I'm going a wee bit overboard on this project. Dirty Dan told me I'd be smart to just put a 3 oz Hayes tank on the outboard side, and fly the heck out of it. But I've got a nice decal planned for that particular expanse of white paint, and paint won't stick to polyethylene at all, so I'm taking an alternative path. The Hayes tank remains an option if this idea turns out to be as stupid as it's shaping up to be.

A short, fat tank, and wasn't I proud that I avoided the landing gear quite nicely with no extreme measures necessary! Too bad that landing gear needs to be held down. This tank reminds me about the tree-swing cartoon ("What what sales sold, what engineering designed, what manufacturing made, what service installed, ... what the customer wanted").

(Mark, I'm remembering your wry observations about engineers and "little details" at Puyallup. Just think how bad it would be if we didn't try to avoid all the little problems).

john e. holliday · « **Reply #111 on:** November 12, 2011, 07:51:26 AM »

I usually put a block of wood under the tank, so it will clear the landing gear. And if the gear is towards the rear of the tank, even better as it moves the rear of the tank out further.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #112 on:** November 12, 2011, 09:16:44 AM »

Quote from: john e. holliday on November 12, 2011, 07:51:26 AM

I usually put a block of wood under the tank, so it will clear the landing gear. And if the gear is towards the rear of the tank, even better as it moves the rear of the tank out further.

Now someone tells me...

I'm not sure why I didn't think of that, although space on this is so tight that I don't know that it would have fit. And anyway, I already built the tank so the outside ridge of the tank kicks out 1/4" at the back.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #113 on:** November 13, 2011, 08:09:50 PM »

And I will hold onto the Banshee for you. You can take it apart and rebuild it too.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #114 on:** November 13, 2011, 08:26:59 PM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on November 13, 2011, 08:09:50 PM

And I will hold onto the Banshee for you. You can take it apart and rebuild it too.

I know. Too bad I never get up to the Seattle area or I'd show up at your door one day.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #115 on:** November 19, 2011, 05:54:08 PM »

Finally getting the Ultracoat on. This isn't just because I'm spending extra time on the plane -- it's because right now I'm spending all my extra time on family and work!!

Sharp-eyed readers will notice that the Ultracoat appears to be brighter than the fuselage paint -- that's because it is. Anyone who thinks "white is white" needs to look at a chip book.

And, I learned a Valuable Lesson the other night, when I was painting the tail: if you make a humongous run in the paint, don't grab a @#% shop rag and wipe it off, thinking that the primer won't come with it. D'oh. Boy am I glad I made this particular mistake on this plane, instead of something that really mattered!

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #116 on:** November 19, 2011, 11:16:01 PM »

Hey! Maybe I should just go flying!

Nah, it needs at least some trim.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #117 on:** November 20, 2011, 11:45:16 PM »

According to Allen Brickhaus, you just squirt the paint on with no surface prep of the 'coat. Dang but I'm trusting (I'm thinking I shoulda wiped it down with thinner or alcohol, just to take the fingerprints off -- too late now!!).

My spray-bomb was spitting a bit. Dang but I hate painting from spray cans. My shop really needs a compressor. And a gun. And at least an excuse for a spray booth. Dang.

Now to wait for it to tack up a bit (this is another Brickhaus thing -- take off the masking tape before the paint has thoroughly cured. This is weird to me, but he says it works...)

john e. holliday · « **Reply #118 on:** November 21, 2011, 06:01:31 AM »

It depends on lthe paint. Just pulled the tape off a dope finish that had set for several days as it was taking several coats to cover. On automotive colors I pull the tape as soon as I can clean up equipment as I get good coverage with them.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #119 on:** November 21, 2011, 10:33:18 AM »

I understand the reasoning -- it's just weird to me.

The full method was to pull off the tape (which you put on without doing anything to seal), then go over the model with a modified (well, a couple of dozen of them in my case) q-tip dipped in thinner to clean up the inevitable "oopsies". It works well. I very much doubt that I can either do as well with it as I could with dope, or as well as Allen does (at least, if I ever see one of his planes in person and the lines are as crappy as mine are, I'll be surprised).

Oh, I wish I had a decent paint shop. Spray-bomb just doesn't give a good pattern, some of the painting is a bit light where I couldn't see as well as I thought I could because of insufficient light in my "spray porch", and the only lightly used can of red spray-bomb had some goobers in the cap that spat out onto my paint.

I want a gun that I can clean 100%, I want a booth with decent lighting, I want a compressor, I want, I want, I want.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #120 on:** November 21, 2011, 12:58:07 PM »

Ready for nose art.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #121 on:** November 21, 2011, 11:03:25 PM »

I should probably be thankful that I'm partially color blind, and really can't tell how poorly the Monocoat matches the Rustoleum.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #122 on:** November 22, 2011, 05:49:29 AM »

Don't need a spray gun to get really nice finishes. Just lots of elbow grease and good brushes, plus the right materials.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #123 on:** November 22, 2011, 10:28:21 AM »

Quote from: john e. holliday on November 22, 2011, 05:49:29 AM

Don't need a spray gun to get really nice finishes. Just lots of elbow grease and good brushes, plus the right materials.

I know, and if I don't get all my ducks in a row (I got a compressor yesterday!!) before the next plane gets finished I think it'll have a brushed-on finish. Or rattle-can, and regrets.

But you sure can get a nice finish a whole lot faster out of a spray gun.

I'm spoiled: in my teens I was the painter for my dad's shop. Of course, for the most part all I was spraying was rust-inhibiting primer onto steel bars, but I painted a couple of models with that spray gun, and put down (and sanded off) the primer on a few plugs for molds. It spoiled me for life, I think.

dirty dan · « **Reply #124 on:** November 23, 2011, 01:24:20 PM »

And I get flak for blah-blah about stuff like this!

That nose art that is so beloved ought go on the tail of the model. More appropriate.

And then you won't mind strapping a Hayes 3-ounce tank to left side of fuselage.

Model looks to come out tail-heavy. What ya want is a balance point 1 5/8" behind LE.

Adjust elevator travel to get turn rate you want.

Hang model from its leadouts. Adjust leadout position to get fuselage to hang 3 degrees nose down.

Do these 3 steps and model will be close to optimum trim. Honest...

Avoid temptation of .012-inch lines. Too much stretch. You'll surely go ahead and try the light lines. Every time the model comes out of a hard corner and bounces on exit, think well of me. Then go to .015" lines, something on the order of 62 to 64 feet center-to-center.

To tie this model to the BOM discussion, you can surely fly it in all NW contests. Not only that, it is eligible--and ought be competitive--in Classic, Profile and your chosen class of AMA.

As to appearance points, clearly not. Regardless of the work and time invested this model began life as an ARF and there is simply no way to change that fact.

I'll give you a heads-up. While it's gone now, at one point in time I decided to do an ARF Flite Streak the right way and it was amazing the stuff which didn't pass muster. Long story short, it ended up being called TWMLIARFFS (The World's Most Labor Intensive ARF Flite Streak). It fully deserved the name.

Although it was not flown frequently in contests, when it was I made absolutely certain the judges knew the model had been birthed as an ARF, despite the fact that it looked as if it had been built from plans.

Dan

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #125 on:** November 23, 2011, 04:46:32 PM »

Quote from: dirty dan on November 23, 2011, 01:24:20 PM

And I get flak for blah-blah about stuff like this!

That nose art that is so beloved ought go on the tail of the model. More appropriate.

Dang. I just painted the tail bright red two days ago. I have some white-backed decal paper; I'll think of whether I can cut the decal out to look right.

Quote

And then you won't mind strapping a Hayes 3-ounce tank to left side of fuselage.

Model looks to come out tail-heavy. What ya want is a balance point 1 5/8" behind LE.

Adjust elevator travel to get turn rate you want.

Hang model from its leadouts. Adjust leadout position to get fuselage to hang 3 degrees nose down.

Do these 3 steps and model will be close to optimum trim. Honest...

I made a built-up stab, and extended the tail by an inch. I expect that to help, but to offset that I've made a weight box for the tail (so you know it's going to remain empty...)

Quote

Avoid temptation of .012-inch lines. Too much stretch. You'll surely go ahead and try the light lines. Every time the model comes out of a hard corner and bounces on exit, think well of me. Then go to .015" lines, something on the order of 62 to 64 feet center-to-center.

No problem there -- I have 700' of .015 line, and no 0.012!

Quote

To tie this model to the BOM discussion, you can surely fly it in all NW contests. Not only that, it is eligible--and ought be competitive--in Classic, Profile and your chosen class of AMA.

As to appearance points, clearly not. Regardless of the work and time invested this model began life as an ARF and there is simply no way to change that fact.

Noooooooo! I've sworn off of BOM discussions -- I'll wait until I'm way more established to jump back in, if ever.

Quote

I'll give you a heads-up. While it's gone now, at one point in time I decided to do an ARF Flite Streak the right way and it was amazing the stuff which didn't pass muster. Long story short, it ended up being called TWMLIARFFS (The World's Most Labor Intensive ARF Flite Streak). It fully deserved the name.

Although it was not flown frequently in contests, when it was I made absolutely certain the judges knew the model had been birthed as an ARF, despite the fact that it looked as if it had been built from plans.

Yup.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #126 on:** December 01, 2011, 04:28:28 PM »

All painting done, even those bits and bobs that I could have painted a long time ago if I'd only been paying attention. There's just nothing like setting down a nicely painted plane on its stand, dusting off one's hands, and noticing three little hatch doors, a fuel tank and a landing gear set, all sitting there unpainted.

The glue on the elevator is wet. Once it dries I can put together the control system. Then I can wait a week for the paint to dry enough that I can assemble everything and not worry about it all sticking together. !!!

Hopefully we'll have nice weather over the Christmas break, and extra-hopefully on he 1st.

John Stiles · « **Reply #127 on:** December 01, 2011, 04:52:53 PM »

That's a goodern Tim.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #128 on:** December 01, 2011, 07:07:41 PM »

Quote from: Tim Wescott on December 01, 2011, 04:28:28 PM

All painting done, even those bits and bobs that I could have painted a long time ago if I'd only been paying attention. There's just nothing like setting down a nicely painted plane on its stand, dusting off one's hands, and noticing three little hatch doors, a fuel tank and a landing gear set, all sitting there unpainted.

Or going to do a spot of assembly on what you thought was your completely painted plane, and picking up the unpainted control rod.

AAAAAAAAAGH!

Randy Powell · « **Reply #129 on:** December 01, 2011, 07:51:44 PM »

And does it weigh 70oz?

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #130 on:** December 01, 2011, 09:10:18 PM »

I would check, but I don't want to paint the scale.

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #131 on:** December 01, 2011, 09:10:37 PM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on December 01, 2011, 07:51:44 PM

And does it weigh 70oz?

snicker,, Randy thats not nice,,

Bill Little · « **Reply #132 on:** December 02, 2011, 08:50:31 AM »

Hmmmm............... painted tanks, control rods, etc., .............

I thought this was a practice plane.........

(just yanking your chain!)

Big Bear

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #133 on:** December 02, 2011, 09:04:34 AM »

It's my practice plane twice: I'm trying out painting techniques on it before I go and risk building a competition plane that'll end up all shabby and ugly looking (or heavy -- I really do appreciate that insight, Randy. I think). Once that's done, then I'm gonna go ~~crash~~, uh, practice with it.

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #134 on:** December 02, 2011, 09:33:37 AM »

Tim, just so you know ,,
I had the same idea a couple times, I soon discovered however, that practicing painting on a plane intended to fly wasnt a great idea, the first one ended up rather heavy, and as such basically was useless as a practice plane,, ( well at least for any more than level flight LOL)
a GOOD practice plane should be minimal investment, easy to repair , and fly well,,
practice painting on your rubber band powered planes, weight isn't as important on them LOL

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #135 on:** December 02, 2011, 10:10:23 AM »

Repair will be easy, if I don't mind it getting a bit ugly (my general in-season repair policy is to put priority on just getting the thing flying, and worry about looks when I have time).

The all-up weight of all the pieces is about 32 ounces (including the motor + prop). Compare that to my Skyray which is a hair over 34 ounces.

So I think I'm doing OK.

Normally when I build a plane, if I'm really serious, I weigh everything that goes into it. By magic, this keeps the weight down. Also normally, at some point in the process I forget to keep weighing, and the weight gain for that step is tremendous. I need to remember to keep that scale handy when I paint the next plane...

dirty dan · « **Reply #136 on:** December 02, 2011, 01:03:04 PM »

Tim,

I'm pulling for you, but there is no way that model will come across the scales at a mere 32 ounces!

At least not when you get it balanced at my suggested 1 5/8" setting.

The good news is that a properly-powered (20FP w/BB T-U) Skyray is pushing the limit but not over it at 34 ounces and I suspect the Flite Streak will net approximately equal results.

Prove me wrong on the weight--I certainly trust you to provide an honest reading of the scales.

Dan

P.S. Ya might want to lay in some 25% fuel. dan

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #137 on:** December 02, 2011, 01:44:01 PM »

+ 1.5 oz with a brass spinner nut, and it's pretty darn close (the wrong way, but still close). Man, this would have been easier in so many ways if that nose were an inch longer. Live and learn...

(This is the first time I've had the gear and the engine on at the same time -- every hard landing is going to mash the LG wire into the muffler. Hopefully it won't hurt the muffler. It'll certainly munge up my nice white paint).

I've got an LA 25 on the Skyray -- I may swap engines. Not only will that make the Streak red, white and blue, but it'll go faster. I can leave the CG a bit back and have a fast, twitchy "reflex trainer". For a little while, at least.

dirty dan · « **Reply #138 on:** December 05, 2011, 12:22:42 PM »

Uh-huh...

Something Brett has preached for years is that trim is far more important than weight. And he is right. Once a model is complete the fight over weight is done and it's on to trimming.

You didn't mention actual balance point but if we're talking about another 1/2 ounce--even a full ounce--to get it right I fail to see a problem with all-up weight. Rounds certainly won't be an issue. You might not like square 8s overmuch but that merely means flying them big while conserving energy (don't bang the corners real hard).

The place to be aware of is the 3rd corner in the triangles and even here above advice will serve you well.

Besides, if this is truly to be a trainer for Stunt flying, it begs to be trimmed for Stunt-like flight, not a Show-biz demonstration of reflexes and derring-do.

Dan

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #139 on:** December 05, 2011, 01:01:34 PM »

Quote from: dirty dan on December 05, 2011, 12:22:42 PM

Uh-huh...

Something Brett has preached for years is that trim is far more important than weight. And he is right. Once a model is complete the fight over weight is done and it's on to trimming.

You didn't mention actual balance point but if we're talking about another 1/2 ounce--even a full ounce--to get it right I fail to see a problem with all-up weight. Rounds certainly won't be an issue. You might not like square 8s overmuch but that merely means flying them big while conserving energy (don't bang the corners real hard).

That makes sense. The balance point is within 1/4", so another 1/2oz or ounce should do.

Quote

Besides, if this is truly to be a trainer for Stunt flying, it begs to be trimmed for Stunt-like flight, not a Show-biz demonstration of reflexes and derring-do.

The "reflex trainer" comment came about because there seems to be a contingent of ex-combat flyers who recommend having at least one way-fast plain in the inventory, because after you do the pattern with that "the regular stunt pattern will seem to take hours".

I dunno if that's good advise or not -- and I'm going to start by seeing how this thing trims up as a stunt plane, first.

dirty dan · « **Reply #140 on:** December 07, 2011, 11:43:46 AM »

Yes, I have heard the go-fast theory and while it may have merit, such is hardly a universal practice. It doesn't do much for me personally. Besides, once a Stunt model is well and truly trimmed--and here we're talking about line size, line length, handle spacing, motor run characteristics and so on in addition model-centric considerations--it will soon come to seem slow.

The trick is to develop your timing. Just going fast does little in this regard.

However, you may want to try flying various models on lines shorter than that which has been determined to be ideal for actual Stunt flying. A mere 4-foot reduction will speed things up while not totally ruining the trim. Again, doesn't do much for me but it is an approach worth considering, especially as one need not make much in the way of changes when going from "long" to "short" lines. You might even discover that you prefer lines longer than your buddies suggest, which for the model under discussion is generally 60 feet, centerline to centerline. In my view too short by some 2 to 4 feet...

Dan

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #141 on:** March 07, 2012, 05:31:59 PM »

I finally got a chance to really fly this today. I had wanted a wheel attachment system that was nicer than the usual wheel collar, less permanent (and less likely to melt wheels) than the soldered-on washer, and more reliable than the epoxied-on washer (which doesn't seem to work for me). Instead, I invented a wheel detachment system. So for a couple of weeks there every time I went flying I'd lose a wheel on the first flight. Then, when I flew on the 1st (and lost a wheel) one of my fellow Fireballs pointed out a method used by RC guys, to solder on a bit of brass tube and use an itty bitty cotter pin. It works great, but all the messing around meant that I lost all my good weather days and I had to wait for months to fly.

So: it seems to fly OK. It doesn't turn as not as nice as the Skyray -- I don't know if this is weight, aerodynamics, or just because I'm as rusty as can be (I am not flying as well as I was in December). But now I have two tested and flyable planes in the stable, and another on the way. So maybe I'll last out the 2012 season without running out of planes.

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #142 on:** March 07, 2012, 05:49:35 PM »

Quote from: Tim Wescott on March 07, 2012, 05:31:59 PM

But now I have two tested and flyable planes in the stable, and another on the way. So maybe I'll last out the 2012 season without running out of planes.

the whole season with two airplanes,, man, you are either conservative, or your getting better faster than I did LOL,,
glad you have it flying Tim,, I have another donor here for you,,LA 25 size,, this one will justify some cosmetic work I suppose,,

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #143 on:** March 07, 2012, 06:01:19 PM »

Quote from: Mark Scarborough on March 07, 2012, 05:49:35 PM

the whole season with two airplanes,, man, you are either conservative, or your getting better faster than I did LOL,,
glad you have it flying Tim,, I have another donor here for you,,LA 25 size,, this one will justify some cosmetic work I suppose,,

I made it through last year with just the Skyray and the Waiex -- but it was a close-run thing, with a few practice days missed while I was doing repairs. I had really intended to get a scratch-built Skyray done this winter, but paying work intervened.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #144 on:** March 08, 2012, 09:17:21 AM »

Payiing work interferes with construction of a Sky Ray???

I did one in less than three days using Plastic covering. I am slow also.

Paul Taylor · « **Reply #145 on:** March 08, 2012, 09:58:51 AM »

Quote from: Tim Wescott on March 07, 2012, 06:01:19 PM

I made it through last year with just the Skyray and the Waiex -- but it was a close-run thing, with a few practice days missed while I was doing repairs. I had really intended to get a scratch-built Skyray done this winter, but paying work intervened.

Tim,
You should rip the wing out of the Streak and stick it in a SkyRay fuse. It will fly much better. And you may have more nose space.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #146 on:** May 05, 2012, 03:32:21 PM »

The turning problem is because it was way nose heavy. I'm not sure if I just fly way different from Dan, or if the longer tail made a huge difference, or what -- but I went from brass spinner to aluminum spinner, to some weight in the tail. Before I just could not get it to turn -- now the thing is balanced just ahead of the spar, and it flies good. I may still take a tad of weight out of the tail -- but I may put some in, too.

(With the new CG it also has the leadouts way forward -- oops. We'll fix that before the next day-o-flying. Thank goodness for adjustable leadouts).

dirty dan · « **Reply #147 on:** May 08, 2012, 12:15:26 PM »

What works is self-defining, especially if you are comfortable with the model.

That said I have enough faith in the 2 5/8" from LE setting for balance that if a given Flite Streak didn't turn well I would be looking to other reasons for it being whacked. Elevator travel would be first on the list but I am suspicious of the line spacing at your handle. You once mentioned having to use so much down that the handle leadouts fouled each other. Big clue but maybe not a deal-killer.

I think you used a CF pushrod but I would still check here for flex.

For reference I can assure you that hard corners are my preference so there would not seem to be an issue of style involved here.

Dan

(The 2 5/8" dimension noted above is clearly incorrect. It should read 1 5/8". dan)

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #148 on:** May 08, 2012, 01:23:28 PM »

CF pushrod that runs from where the wire exits the wing back to about an inch in front of the elevator horn, and full elevator deflection is a bit short of +/- 45 degrees. I would assume that if I let it have any more deflection it'd just turn into an airbrake. At the starting CG point the plane would be hanging on the up (or down) line and square corners would mostly be recognizable because of where the maneuver came in the pattern, and sometimes because of the short straight parts in between the big swoopy corners.

Scott Riese gave me two 1/10th-ounce weights at the contest on Saturday (thank you, Scott), before my two aborted flights in NW Profile. Two weights makes it really jumpy, one makes it turn not quite hard enough (probably, but I may end up back there). I have one and a half weights in there now and while the plane is still a bit jumpy in level flight it is at least a better compromise than with either one or two full ones.

By the "turns tight enough" symptom my CG is correct, and I'm willing to discount jumpiness in level flight as being pilot error. But it does tend to slow down and float a bit when the engine cuts -- so I may need to let the CG go forward.

At the moment I'm planning on playing with line spacing with the weight I have. If that doesn't calm it down then I'll juggle line spacing and more weight (probably in 1-gram increments, or even less) and see where I end up.

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #149 on:** May 08, 2012, 02:33:21 PM »

Tim, it would be really advantageous to spend some time really watching and studying the track made by the airplane when other people fly. I know myself, I was trying to obtain a corner that is neither obtainable, nor is it advantageous. I had envisioned a super tight corner and worked towards that goal. however a nice reasonable corner followed by a locked in flat is far prettier and will score far higher than a lightening bolt super sharp corner with wiggles after,,