I'd appreciate that Howard. Do I understand correctly that the device's intent to to provide a variation in flap deflection based on total control input...i.e. less per degree of elevator at one end of the "cam" throw and more per degree at the other?? Any idea what the rationale for doing so might be?
It has the effect of giving you lots flap motion around neutral, and then progressively more elevator the further you deflect it. It's like having large flaps for rounds and smaller flaps for squares. You want the flap to improve the tracking in rounds and give you some feel in level flight, but less (just like the small flaps on the Imitation) to permit more elevator deflection in the squares.
Your solution (smaller/just big enough) flaps has the potential to have the problem that you had at the 2004 WC, e.i. not enough feel/too "pitchy", and that we later solved on that fateful flight afterwards by decreasing the relative elevator travel. This hypothetically removes any compromise you might have to make in flap area or relative motion to make it happy in both rounds and squares.
I have only flown one flight (Paul's first Predator) so I couldn't comment on the desireability. It is very closely related to a thread we had on SSW in the early 2000's that I cannot immediately find, the problem at the time being coming up with an acceptable mechanism to implement it. I think Igor was a participant in that thread but whether it influenced him or not, I don't know.
I would guess that it would greatly improve the various "giant flap" models and essentially addresses the issue we found with Paul Ferrell's profile Cardinal, just in a different way that does not require knives and saws. Hard to say how it would compare on a conventional model, or if you would want to make the flaps bigger but (just like the light handle thread), one disregards Paul Walker as one's own peril.
Brett
Topic: Igor's flap system thread??? (Read 5500 times)