If you have more throw on the flaps it will tend to stall. You will be using the flaps to control up/down more than the elevator.
<<snip>>
You can get away with an even throw on the flaps vs elevator (in fact your Nobler ARF is most likely sey up this way) and it will fly somewhere between good and great. But this Banshee (and the Twister too) will fly better with more elevator throw. If even just a little bit.
***This is a ***general rule for any flapped stunter. You want the elevator to do it's job of controling up/down... not the flaps.
I will have to disagree with this - the more flap you use, the *less* it will tend to stall, but the less it will want to rotate. You are right that the stock Twister and Banshee will *probably* do better with slightly more elevator motion that flap on average. But even that depends on the weight and engine - the heavier they are, and/or the weaker the engine, the more flap movement will be required*. That's because they have tiny tail volumes by current standards, and can't overcome the tendency to pitch the wrong way due to deflected flaps as much as if you had more tail volume. With sufficient tail volume you don't have to worry too much about flap deflections as far at that goes. You *do* have to deal with hinge moments and the Netzeband wall, that's the limiting factor.
With a stock Twister or Banshee at a reasonable weight, they are a bit "flappy". With a Fox, that might be the best you could do, because if you reduce the flap travel, you lose so much speed in the corners that it will tend to stall. With a 40LA, or a 25FP, or similar, you will be able to handle less flap travel because the speed stays up in the corners, and be better off overall. The engines, and in particular, the low-pitch props, make the cornering much better, and that's why you see so many airplanes with 13 + oz/square foot wing loadings winning so much.
It's not generally true that you want less flap than elevator motion, in fact, with experimentation some of us have found that the overall balance of the airplane is almost always better with 1:1 or slightly higher, and smaller flaps, than with large flaps with less deflection. The effect is that if my airplanes comes out a lot lighter than expected, and had too much flap, that I would prefer to replace the flaps with smaller ones instead of taking out the flap motion. Reducing the flap motion would be a good stopgap and we have done that but with removable flaps I would eventually replace them. I've gone the other direction, too
Brett
*That's really why the weight kills models like these with small tail volumes - not that you can't get enough lift, but that if you put in sufficient flap travel to get enough lift, it opens the corners because of the negative pitching moment. Abnormally light airplanes can really benefit from reduced flap travel.
Topic: SIG Banshee (Read 7517 times)
