Robert

[Randy Ryan]

Sorry you decided to delete your thread, I was finding it quite interesting. I know what its like to have ideas attacked and criticized but allot of good stuff comes from those discussions. Some people are a little less then tactful, but you shouldn't let that bother you.

[RC Storick]

here is just one of the PM's I get.

I`m a world class F3A competitor/Designer  been to many WC as part of the US Team ,Not a flier ,But I design and Build for many of the team Members. Been as High as 7`Th at the Nat's and top ten 4 times

I understand a dedicated design philosophy ,
I would fly Glow power,But  I would have no Idea What it is worth money wise, for you to build it for me But looking at your post and work I can agree with your efforts and it seems you have a common sense logic behind what you do ,AS do I.

I`m a Master Volvo Mechanic and this gives me real Common sense approach to what I do in the Hobby.  

We fight the same battles:)

Good to talk with you
hope we can work something out
I`m falling in love with the stunt planes

He had asked me for plans or a kit. Well there aren't any yet. Some do have a grasp some don't

[Randy Powell]

Robert,

Hey, you believe what you believe. I respect that. Go after what you think is right. If others don't believe it, so what? Do what you want. That is the beauty of this, no one can tell you you're wrong really. The plane will tell you. If you are happy with it or think you're on the right track, keep at it.

[Bill Morell]

Robert, what I don't understand is that with the number of times that you have tried to make people see it your way, with always the same results, is why do you continue to start it? Every time it ends up with the same outcome. You get mad, the thread gets deleted and a lot of good opinions go bye bye. Not everyone is ever going to agree with you. Some will, some won't. Expecting everyone to is just not a realistic expectation.

[RC Storick]

Robert, what I don't understand is that with the number of times that you have tried to make people see it your way, with always the same results, is why do you continue to start it? Every time it ends up with the same outcome. You get mad, the thread gets deleted and a lot of good opinions go bye bye. Not everyone is ever going to agree with you. Some will, some won't. Expecting everyone to is just not a realistic expectation.

I don't mind intelligent responses I do mind poking responses that are just put up to pi$$ me off. Eggs are not loops but they still score well depending on who's doing them. If you think I am wrong many Youtube videos as examples.

[Randy Ryan]

I don't mind intelligent responses I do mind poking responses that are just put up to pi$$ me off. Eggs are not loops but they still score well depending on who's doing them. If you think I am wrong many Youtube videos as examples.

All I can say to that is if you let them @#$% you off that bad, they win and we lose. Turn off your PISSED OFF button man!! Ignore them.

[Brett Buck]

here is just one of the PM's I get.

I`m a world class F3A competitor/Designer  been to many WC as part of the US Team ,Not a flier ,But I design and Build for many of the team Members. Been as High as 7`Th at the Nat's and top ten 4 times

I understand a dedicated design philosophy ,
I would fly Glow power,But  I would have no Idea What it is worth money wise, for you to build it for me But looking at your post and work I can agree with your efforts and it seems you have a common sense logic behind what you do ,AS do I.

I`m a Master Volvo Mechanic and this gives me real Common sense approach to what I do in the Hobby.  

We fight the same battles:)

Good to talk with you
hope we can work something out
I`m falling in love with the stunt planes

He had asked me for plans or a kit. Well there aren't any yet. Some do have a grasp some don't

   I am not sure what was controversial or upsetting about the previous thread. Someone asked about the Tucker and I explained the results, it didn't challenge you or attempt to contradict you. It was merely answering a question. Last thing I saw was Jim Hoffman very politely confirming the Tucker results.

    You have started several threads recently where you were trying to get people to argue with you. I saw some of the responses you edited later, and they were extremely hostile, then moderated when you edited them. No one bit on those, now you delete the thread claiming people "attacked" you or something? Why?

  You are doing a great thing here with this message board and no one is trying to antagonize you - why would they? You seem to take everything anyone says on any topic as some sort of personal commentary on you, and no one is doing that. What is the point of going around trying to pick fights with people.

    Brett

[RC Storick]

  I am not sure what was controversial or upsetting about the previous thread. Someone asked about the Tucker and I explained the results, it didn't challenge you or attempt to contradict you. It was merely answering a question. Last thing I saw was Jim Hoffman very politely confirming the Tucker results.

    You have started several threads recently where you were trying to get people to argue with you. I saw some of the responses you edited later, and they were extremely hostile, then moderated when you edited them. No one bit on those, now you delete the thread claiming people "attacked" you or something? Why?

  You are doing a great thing here with this message board and no one is trying to antagonize you - why would they? You seem to take everything anyone says on any topic as some sort of personal commentary on you, and no one is doing that. What is the point of going around trying to pick fights with people.

    Brett

Not directed at you, Ron and I just laughed. I state what I think and I am told I am wrong. BS I don't care who did what with some airplane. I state what I thought and if you agree (not directed at one person) great and if you don't fine just don't tell me what I know. There are quite a few who agree. Then I am told not to lead with my chin. I will start leading with a boot.

There are some that don't know when to stop poking the bee hive

The list soon to follow

[Doug Moon]

I just tried to find out what kind of plane it was in the past that gave you the "feel" you are looking for.  I have always wondered what it was and the setup, motor etc that you are trying to mimic in a larger frame.

You replied, didnt answer the question, and stated that small planes dont score well.  Then went on to tell people not to believe what you hear.

I agree people should not believe YOU when YOU or others say small planes dont score well and I sited two examples off the top of my head. 

Then you go on and constantly state people cant grasp what you are saying, like we are all morons or something.  And you back it up with your constant talk about people win but their planes dont fly good.  Those are straight insults if you ask me, but you arent and that's ok. 


 

[Derek Barry]

  I am not sure what was controversial or upsetting about the previous thread. Someone asked about the Tucker and I explained the results, it didn't challenge you or attempt to contradict you. It was merely answering a question. Last thing I saw was Jim Hoffman very politely confirming the Tucker results.

    You have started several threads recently where you were trying to get people to argue with you. I saw some of the responses you edited later, and they were extremely hostile, then moderated when you edited them. No one bit on those, now you delete the thread claiming people "attacked" you or something? Why?

  You are doing a great thing here with this message board and no one is trying to antagonize you - why would they? You seem to take everything anyone says on any topic as some sort of personal commentary on you, and no one is doing that. What is the point of going around trying to pick fights with people.

    Brett

Bingo.

Derek

[Derek Barry]

And since we are on the "poor Robert" thread why don't you tell everyone that the people that you are threatening to give the "boot" are the exact same people that helped you improve your pattern and trim while at the Nats. So much so that you barely missed qualifying for the finals.

Derek

[Bob Whitely]

Robert, No one is picking on you. Your lack of higher placings in your competition
adventure can be placed squarely on the need for a good coach and lots of
practice. I have seen you fly a couple of times and it is obvious that the need for
flying improvement will greatly enhance your chances of getting to the podium.
Get yourself a good coach and fly hundreds if not thousands of flights and fix
the many problems that exist and you should do better.  In your case the model is
not the limiting factor. RJ

[wwwarbird]

 The main problem here is that a few people are, in they're own mind, simply determined to think that they are the one who is "right" about All Things Stunt.

 The bottom line and REALITY is that every individual C/L builder and pilot has they're own personal preferences in what they desire or believe is "right" in a models construction and/or performance. A model that is built and performs in perfect World Class form in one pilots opinion may wobble around like a turd in another's opinion. All of this is as much or more about the individual and his perception as it is in the airplane. Those are the realities, and they will never change. 

 What matters is that the guy holding onto the handle enjoys the model he's flying, and is satisfied or is progressing toward satisfaction with it. In any case, on contest day, it's still usually gonna boil down to which pilot has burned the most fuel.

[Randy Cuberly]

Robert,
I have to say that I'm very disappointed that you deleted that thread.  Yes I know you own the forum and I'm very grateful to you for it's creation and maintenance.  But...once a thread is underway a lot of people contribute ideas and opinions.  As long as those opinions and ideas don't violate the basic principles of decency etc. it's really very unfair to all concerned to delete the thread.
No one ever agrees with everything said on any forum but deleting a thread just because you don't agree with the content is the worst form of censorship.
I know down deep you're really not that kind of person or you wouldn't have started this forum in the first place, so I'll just consider it poor judgement of the moment.
I believe if you truly think about it you'll agree.  I would like to believe that you would restore the thread if that's possible.

Randy Cuberly

[Curt D Contrata]

Historical revisionism (negationism)


Curt

[Dave Wenzel]

Just my 2 cents here, but I think Robert is not all wrong as a lot of people think. I believe he feels that bracketing was in play, and just can not overcome his not being able to explain it without others yelling sour grapes.
Robert, stand your ground.
I guess it's why I like NHRA. You run or go home. No judges.

DAVE

[Randy Cuberly]

Just my 2 cents here, but I think Robert is not all wrong as a lot of people think. I believe he feels that bracketing was in play, and just can not overcome his not being able to explain it without others yelling sour grapes.
Robert, stand your ground.
I guess it's why I like NHRA. You run or go home. No judges.

DAVE

Hey,
I don't think anyone here is complaining about Robert "standing his ground" just that he decided to give up and erase what he and everyone else said.
It has nothing to do with being right or wrong it's about taking your marbles and going home.  In other words if you can't take the heat for heavens sake stay out of the stupid kitchen!

Randy Cuberly

[Steve Helmick]

I'm sorry to see that Robert removed the thread. I didn't get to see the last of the posts, so don't know exactly what the stress was all about. Perhaps it was some jocularity (needling) that was misunderstood?

One thing I've noticed here is that along about late winter, folks are getting bitchy. Whether that is from long hours of sanding, headaches caused by paint fumes, or the  complaining about the previous items, I don't know. It's starting to look like there is a similar trend as the flying season is approaching the end in most parts of the country.  Too bad.  Steve

[steven yampolsky]

Just my 2 cents here, but I think Robert is not all wrong as a lot of people think. I believe he feels that bracketing was in play, and just can not overcome his not being able to explain it without others yelling sour grapes.

What's bracketing got to do with light airframes? Flying high and inconsistent bottoms can contribute to "bracketing" but not airframes be they light or heavy.

[RC Storick]

Serves no purpose

[wwwarbird]

I guess it's why I like NHRA. You run or go home. No judges.

 Heh-heh. Not that the "Average Joe" sees anyway, there are plenty of behind the scenes "things" going on in NHRA too. It's just like anything in the world these days, more often than not the "names" and/or teams with the $$$ come out on top whenever there are any doubts, debates, or disagreements. This is just another thing that's not going to change anymore. I don't agree with a lot of it either, but there's nothing any of us are going to do about it.


 On another note I caught a Stuntanger reference here on the forum a while back and really didn't like hearing it. Thing is, I couldn't argue with the comment either. This crap has been happening way too often here and it's just not good for any of us, or for any attempt in promoting or enjoying the hobby. 

 How about we all just quit the d--n whining and get back to modeling, and having FUN with it. Get over it folks!!!

[Brett Buck]

Just my 2 cents here, but I think Robert is not all wrong as a lot of people think. I believe he feels that bracketing was in play, and just can not overcome his not being able to explain it without others yelling sour grapes.
Robert, stand your ground.
I guess it's why I like NHRA. You run or go home. No judges.

   This is not specific to Robert or this thread but - even if this was true, it doesn't matter. The only solution to *any* perceived "judging issue" is for the pilot to *fly better*. That is absolutely the only thing that the competitor has any control over. If you think you are being pigeonholed in some way, the onus is on you to convince people that you don't belong there any more.

    Subjectivity is absolutely and positively a hallmark characteristic of stunt scoring, that is the nature of it and it is not going to change. The judges generally do a fantastically good job, but you have to come to grips with the inherent subjectivity or it will not be an enjoyable event.

     Brett

[wwwarbird]

 The only solution to *any* perceived "judging issue" is for the pilot to *fly better*.

 The judges generally do a fantastically good job, but you have to come to grips with the inherent subjectivity or it will not be an enjoyable event.

 Yep.

[Howard Rush]

The judges generally do a fantastically good job, but you have to come to grips with the inherent subjectivity or it will not be an enjoyable event.

You also need to have confidence that you are being judged fairly.  Folks have put a lot of effort into making the US Nats stunt process fair and open.  Please do a search here or on SSW to find explanations of the methods used, including the process for evaluating judges. Then look at the judge training process.  I think these should give you that confidence. 

[Doug Moon]

...snip...The only solution to *any* perceived "judging issue" is for the pilot to *fly better*. That is absolutely the only thing that the competitor has any control over. If you think you are being pigeonholed in some way, the onus is on you to convince people that you don't belong there any more.

    Subjectivity is absolutely and positively a hallmark characteristic of stunt scoring, that is the nature of it and it is not going to change. The judges generally do a fantastically good job, but you have to come to grips with the inherent subjectivity or it will not be an enjoyable event.

     Brett

BOOOOOOOOOOM!!

[Doug Moon]

You also need to have confidence that you are being judged fairly.  Folks have put a lot of effort into making the US Nats stunt process fair and open.  Please do a search here or on SSW to find explanations of the methods used, including the process for evaluating judges. Then look at the judge training process.  I think these should give you that confidence. 

True, very true!

[steven yampolsky]

    Subjectivity is absolutely and positively a hallmark characteristic of stunt scoring, that is the nature of it and it is not going to change. The judges generally do a fantastically good job, but you have to come to grips with the inherent subjectivity or it will not be an enjoyable event.

Wow. This has got to be the most concise and precise explanation I've ever heard on this subject! If elected District 1 director, this will be my byline on district reports!

[Joseph Lijoi]

I`m a Master Volvo Mechanic and this gives me real Common sense approach to what I do in the Hobby.  

Robert

Please hook me up with this guy.  I own a Volvo 940 Turbo (greatest Volvo ever made) and if he is ok with it I would like to pick his brain on this and other Volvos.

Thanks.

[Bill Little]

Hi Robert,

What you have done with this site is unbelievable.  Your views on the "type" of model you want to build and fly is totally your opinion and no worse than anyone else's.  You should definitely state your opinions and thoughts and such as YOURS.  If the majority (or vocal minority) do not agree then let it ride.  Sounds like there are many of the Top 5 who really want to see you make it up the ladder.  They can be helpful even to you.

I am in Billy Werwage's line of thought, "I guess you can build a stunt plane too light, but I have never done it!". 

Stay the course!

Bill

[john e. holliday]

Now Sparky,  You now realize why I do not get serious about stunt flying any more.   I was always taught to build light and straight as possible.   Yes,  finish did come into play, but I can't finish a plane worth a hoot.   So after so many contests in which I and several others thought I had it nailed and wound up getting knocked out the podium placings, I said that was it.   Fun flying only even if it is a contest, I will fly to satisfy myself.   Same with finishes.   I have one now waiting on the Rustoleum finish.   I was trying my best for a light finish/build and said to heck with it.  I really admire you guys that can build light and finish light.   So I hope you don't let us knot heads get to you as I really admire your work.   By the way I hope you guys have stunt heaven weather this weekend.   

[wwwarbird]

(greatest Volvo ever made)

 Hmm, I never knew there was such a thing.

[Joseph Lijoi]

Hmm, I never knew there was such a thing.

Hey……be nice!
I know this is probably the wrong forum to discuss the merits of the Swedish Brick, but I don’t like castor oil or the Ringmaster that much either
Actually my 940 can drift and around here is known as the “General Swede”.

[Curare]

Hey gents just another quick question about the 'ballasted' tucker special; the idea of a ballasted ship still seems counter-intuitive to me, but thinking about has raised a few questions.

Rather than add weight to the ship, for arguments sake wouldn't it be a better idea to remove some of the wing area rather than add weight? This would mean you don't decrease your power loading but you wing loading incresases, right? Orrr is it the fact that you now you have to apply more centripetal force to the aircraft to turn keep it tethered therefore raising the Netzeband wall?

I get the feeling I'm missing a key element here. 

[Howard Rush]

Hey gents just another quick question about the 'ballasted' tucker special; the idea of a ballasted ship still seems counter-intuitive to me, but thinking about has raised a few questions.

Rather than add weight to the ship, for arguments sake wouldn't it be a better idea to remove some of the wing area rather than add weight? This would mean you don't decrease your power loading but you wing loading incresases, right? Orrr is it the fact that you now you have to apply more centripetal force to the aircraft to turn keep it tethered therefore raising the Netzeband wall?

I get the feeling I'm missing a key element here.  

It's the Netzeband Wall, which is actually kinda squishy.  To turn a corner, you gotta deflect the airplane control surfaces.  To deflect the airplane control surfaces, you need differential tension between the control lines to react the torques on the surfaces caused by air loads.  In the trade, we call that torque "hinge moment".  You can get into a situation turning a corner with some airplanes where the tension on the more-slack line gets low enough that the effects of line drag and elasticity get significant, making it difficult to fly the corner accurately, and may actually limit the turn radius you can attain (that's the Wall). Adding weight to the airplane gives more line tension, but it also makes the airplane need more lift, hence more hinge moment, to get a given turn radius.  There can be a particular situation where adding weight fixes the line tension problems more than it hurts the lift problems.  I think we can come close to calculating the flight condition where this can happen (calculating hinge moment is the hard part).  There are also ways to prevent it while you're building the airplane by choosing the right control geometry and control surface configuration.   I did some calculation and measurements.  I keep intending to finish writing this up, but I got sidetracked again getting ready for a model airplane contest.  

I can't see offhand how removing wing area would help, but removing flap chord sometimes can.

[Brett Buck]

Hey gents just another quick question about the 'ballasted' tucker special; the idea of a ballasted ship still seems counter-intuitive to me, but thinking about has raised a few questions.

Rather than add weight to the ship, for arguments sake wouldn't it be a better idea to remove some of the wing area rather than add weight? This would mean you don't decrease your power loading but you wing loading incresases, right? Orrr is it the fact that you now you have to apply more centripetal force to the aircraft to turn keep it tethered therefore raising the Netzeband wall?

I get the feeling I'm missing a key element here. 

   Howard of course has it, reducing the wing area per se doesn't help much of at all, the hinge moment would be the same if you had the same flap and elevator. Reducing the size overall (and leaving the bellcrank and control system the same) and keeping the same mass *would* be equivalent to what we did on the Tucker, because the hinge moments would be reduced and the line tension would be the same.

   At some point, of course, you start losing and the ability to deflect the controls is outweighed by running out of lift at the higher wing loading, or poor vertical performance. With the engines the Tucker was designed around (Fox/Forster/Johnson 35), this limit is *much* lower than it is with a Rustler-Merco 40/Tornado 10-4 3-blade. It may indeed be impossible to build it to lightly with a Fox, because the hinge moment issue is less relevant than the lack of vertical performance or ability to keep the speed up in the corners.

   Throw more effective "power" into the equation, the weight makes far less difference in the cornering or the vertical performance, but you can add weight and deflect the controls further and have more restoring forces in roll and yaw.

   This is a crucial observation that many people have missed completely - at one time, with the feeble power available before about 1985, building lighter was a critical factor and almost always improved the performance. Since the ST60 and then much more so, tuned pipe engines, it's an entirely different game and different (and reduced) set of engineering compromises. 4-strokes (at least in the common run style using 4.5" pitch props at relatively high revs) and electric are not exactly the same as tuned pipes but the differences are minor compared to Fox 35/ST46 days.

    Brett

[Dennis Moritz]

Does this imply that the bigger the bellcrank the better is not always the case? I prefer the feel of a 3 or 3 1/2 inch crank in a lightweight under fifty inch span plane. 4 inch cranks need too much movement to deflect the controls. Cutting the control horns down, can, I guess restore a more favorable geometry. But... I don't know what would appropriately follow the "but."

[Dennis Moritz]

Sparky likes the feel of his new plane. Which means he got it right on that one. For him. The interplay of weight, moments, weight distribution, lift of wing, area of control surfaces and so forth and so on. All those aerodynamic forces, labled and unlabeled. "Feel" is I think an important factor, even tho it is a subjective preference. What I like at the handle not necessarily what you like. The Netzeband wall is an interesting concept, but I'm just not sure about it applying here. It seems to me a fifty ounce plane traveling at fifty five miles and hour should pull hard enough on the tethers to activate the controls. I've flown 36 ounce fifty inch wing span planes that flew great.

[RC Storick]

Sparky likes the feel of his new plane. Which means he got it right on that one. For him. The interplay of weight, moments, weight distribution, lift of wing, area of control surfaces and so forth and so on. All those aerodynamic forces, labled and unlabeled. "Feel" is I think an important factor, even tho it is a subjective preference. What I like at the handle not necessarily what you like. The Netzeband wall is an interesting concept, but I'm just not sure about it applying here. It seems to me a fifty ounce plane traveling at fifty five miles and hour should pull hard enough on the tethers to activate the controls. I've flown 36 ounce fifty inch wing span planes that flew great.

I do enjoy the feel of my new plane however I wish I would have put a 3 inch bellcrank in it. Design concepts are forgotten. The reason for the four inch bell crank was to slow the controls down so you could move the CG aft to compensate for the concentrated weight of the 13 ounce engine.

Now with electric motors at 6.5 ounces and the batteries moved back you can run the CG farther forward for better penetration into the NETZEBAN wall. 3 degrees motor off set also helps with line tension. These things are not my ideas they are old concepts. Look at the Layout of the Yatsinkos they follow the same train of thought and they are aircraft engineers so they must know something.

One thing I will add on the Tucker Special is the Tuckers that everyone is flying are not the same as the originals. There is one Original Tucker left and can be found in Shaffer's Hobby in Saint Louis along with the Original Formula S.

On a side note a 1960 Fox .35 is not the same as todays Fox.

Howard did hit it right. Less flap.

[Dave_Trible]

Does this imply that the bigger the bellcrank the better is not always the case? I prefer the feel of a 3 or 3 1/2 inch crank in a lightweight under fifty inch span plane. 4 inch cranks need too much movement to deflect the controls. Cutting the control horns down, can, I guess restore a more favorable geometry. But... I don't know what would appropriately follow the "but."

There are really two bellcranks in the geometry;  the one in the plane and the one in your hand.  One can change either to get to any feel you want, ie, if the four inch crank seems to slow spread the handle spacing a notch and it will have the same effect as a smaller crank.  Space them assemetrically to help a ship that wants to turn slower one way than the other.  What the larger crank gives you is more power over the controls to deflect in the airstream.  They got larger when the airplanes and control surfaces grew.  Smaller and lighter airplanes turn with less control pressure so smaller cranks are fine in that regard but quicken the response to inputs.  This then can be tamed at the handle if needed.  I think the only thing about the lighter ship is that the tension is not very consistent at all points in a maneuver and in various winds so the response and feel will vary a bunch.  I'm sure Ted's adding weight made the tension more and more consistent which gave a more predictable response everywhere not to mention better penetration.  All good up to a point where the wing loading crosses the line.


I sure did find the line......
Dave

[Dennis Moritz]

I have flown light planes in wind conditions others found challenging. 2011 Nats as a matter of fact. The plane felt comfortable, in control, no problem. Got some of my highest scores ever. Admittedly they were modest. Mid pack at best. But good for me.

[Dave_Trible]

Yes Dennis good for you!  I've seen you fly and you do well.  You'll know more of what I mean when you notice flat spots on the upper portions of rounds and 'double wingovers' instead of overhead eights.  The airplane gets light on the lines and you lose control authority.  The airstream forces the flaps toward neutral and you can't generate enough force without really yanking to push that flap into the wind.

Dave

[Dennis Moritz]

Flat spots on my oval loops. Maybe that would help me fake a square. True. I haven't ever seen smaller planes in top 5. Mike Palko tho, did win Advanced at the NATs with a 40 sized Electric Bird. I think it was 2008. In 2007 (I think that was it) he flew that plane in near gale force winds and did well, all things considered. The Big Birds in all classes got blown around fiercely. One fellow did an hourglass that went so far back at the top it almost nicked the asphalt behind the pilot's head. Conditions were so difficult the flier was applauded, despite this, at the end of the flight. The applause was appreciative.

[Dennis Moritz]

I don't like big handles. They feel clunky to me. I like small light handles thin enough to fit between the first and second knuckles on my fingers. I use fingers as much as my wrist to go up and down. The subjective "feel" criteria coming into play. A reason for me to get the bellcrank/control horn ratio close to right without needing to compensate (or adjust) ratios a lot at the handle.

[Dave_Trible]

I sure agree about the heavy, clunky handles.  I make my own from 1/8 ply,  motor stock and balsa.  Very light- like a Hot Rock but quite adjustable.

[Brett Buck]

I do enjoy the feel of my new plane however I wish I would have put a 3 inch bellcrank in it. Design concepts are forgotten. The reason for the four inch bell crank was to slow the controls down so you could move the CG aft to compensate for the concentrated weight of the 13 ounce engine.

   It's not to slow the controls down (although it does do that, or alternately permits a bigger handle). The point is to give you more torque for a given amount of line tension. It is definitely not a matter of merely altering the mechanical rate, it would still work if you had the ratios exactly the same.

    Brett

[Brett Buck]

There are really two bellcranks in the geometry;  the one in the plane and the one in your hand.  One can change either to get to any feel you want, ie, if the four inch crank seems to slow spread the handle spacing a notch and it will have the same effect as a smaller crank.

    As far as control ratio goes, but it doesn't help you overcome the lack of control effort.

    Brett

[Dennis Moritz]

Thanks for the pic Dave. I was thinking of doing a handle like the one you use. 1/8" ply. Light and thin. I will probably tape a bit of foam over finger cutouts. Cushion my arthritic fingers. Suddenly that's an issue for me. Damn.

[Dan McEntee]

Now with electric motors at 6.5 ounces and the batteries moved back you can run the CG farther forward for better penetration into the NETZEBAN wall.

   I think this is a contradiction in terms. If you move the battery back, you are moving the CG back. In order to move the CG forward, you need to add ballast or weight, correct? Instead of adding excess weight between the battery and the motor, why not move the battery back forward for optimum CG and leave out the excess balance weight? This is the question I have been asking all along.
   Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

[RC Storick]

Build the tail lighter

Sent from my SCH-M828C using Tapatalk 2

[Bruce Shipp]

Robert,

If I recall correctly, you said somewhere in regards to your new plane that you built a new battery tray that moved the battery as far aft as possible and this helped you get the feel you were looking for. 

What happened to the CG when you moved the battery?  Did you adjust it to keep it the same as before the battery was moved or did you adjust it for or aft? 

Thanks,

Bruce