stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Ken Culbertson on November 23, 2020, 12:21:46 AM
-
I was wondering if anybody would fess up to having built or seen a "Formula S" in profile? I need a *three event* plane for next year since my building capability is hovering at zero right now. Also, what if you upsize a bit? Can you still use it in Classic - my guess is no but....
Ken
-
Ken,
No on the upsize for Classic legal.
-
Ken,
No on the upsize for Classic legal.
And NO on making the Formula S into a profile for Classic legal.
Keith
-
Try Excaliber II. H^^
-
And NO on making the Formula S into a profile for Classic legal.
Keith
You guys are bumming me out but the rules are the rules. I may be frozen out of classic but that does open up the door for a modern profile. There is always the profile Cavalier but it is itty bitty.
Ken
-
Well, it's not Classic, but there is the Ringmaster 576. Profile and modern stunt. And if you don't mind stretching the rules some, could go with Al Rabe's Mustunt I, the profile one.
Sent from my Lenovo TB-X505F using Tapatalk
-
Try Excaliber II. H^^
Can't find the plans/pictures anywhere. I found two versions of the Excalibur which looks an awfully like like a Twister but since it is older maybe the Twister looks a lot like the Excalibur. Lines are OK but the straight wing? Is the II better. One set had a horrible airfoil. The other one not so bad.
Ken
-
Ted Fancher's Imitation is a very competitive Profile, N-30 and Pampa design.....
Jim
-
The original Excalibur (sharp LE) was in the May 1967 FM (CF78). The Excalibur II in September 1973 (CF309). I can't comment on their flight characteristics.
-
You might look at the Trophy Trainer if you want something that is a bit larger for classic and profile.
If you fly super 70's there are more options.
https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/dual-purpose-plane-for-profile-and-classic/
(https://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=53889.0;attach=300130;image)
-
Well, it's not Classic, but there is the Ringmaster 576. Profile and modern stunt. And if you don't mind stretching the rules some, could go with Al Rabe's Mustunt I, the profile one.
Sent from my Lenovo TB-X505F using Tapatalk
I forgot about the Mustunt. Flew with Al in the mid 70's and that plane flies good enough to not embarrass me in PA and more than enough to hold it's own in profile. However, not being classic hurts. Looking like the Trifecta at 650 squares is fading. So my choices seem to be Small Classic/Profile and a PA or Profile/PA and a Classic. A two state solution. LL~
There is a "trust me" option. I don't want to go there unless I have to. My 1964 Sandpiper design that I flew in 1964-66 had a profile version that I built in 1967 just before I was to head to the safety of Vietnam to escape the campus violence. It was never photographed (no cell phones back then) and it was missing along with everything else when I got back.
I rebuilt one along with the full bodied one when I started flying again in 2016. In fact it was my first build. I didn't want to use it in Classic because I can't document it. I can document the full body one. Only changes were to use fuselage mounted gear and swept tips. That was my first plane with swept tips and I have not designed one since without them. The pix is the 2017 Rebuild of the full body.
The profile is on one of my posts somewhere, if I find it I will link it here.
Ken
Found the Profile
https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/roast-me!-pattern-video-critique-request/?action=dlattach;attach=287903;image
-
You might look at the Trophy Trainer if you want something that is a bit larger for classic and profile.
If you fly super 70's there are more options.
https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/dual-purpose-plane-for-profile-and-classic/
I wish we did fly Super 70's but it is Old Time & Classic here. Maybe we should change Classic from the plane to the pilot. Anybody kitted before 1950. LL~
Ken
-
Ken, I know your pain. I've been without a shop for over 3 years now, but I've started setting one up last week.
I built, and campaigned an Excalibur for several years back shortly after the turn of this century. As you've discovered, there are two versions available. Excalibur I, and II.
The differences are easy to describe. Excalibur I is the one with the pointy airfoil. A PA person, such as ourselves, will most likely shy away from this version as the airfoil looks strange, and contrary to what we expect. Dick Mathis, the designer, is from the ranks of competitive free flight. This wing uses elements from that background.
He used tabulator spars on the front portion of the wing, from the leading edge back to the main spar. The effect astonished me as I didn't believe the plane should be able to fly so well with it's strange airfoil, but fly very well it did. The only change I did was make what little leading edge there was a little blunter than shown on the plans. Powered with a Classic OS .35S on 62 foot lines and it was a potent performer in Classic, Profile, and Pampa class.
Excalibur II changed the wing as far as I've checked. My guess is that he might have gotten some feed back over the shape of the earlier wing.
The new wing uses a what appears to be a NACA symmetrical airfoil and uses leading edge sheeting rather than tabulator spars. It is not Classic legal but of course can be used in Profile, and Pampa classes.
I can recommend the Excalibur I as a very good choice for a triple-threat competition plane, recognizing that it is a 50-60 year old design, so, when you compete in modern PA classes you may have a slight up hill climb, but the design can shine in the right hands.
-
Ken, I know your pain. I've been without a shop for over 3 years now, but I've started setting one up last week.
I built, and campaigned an Excalibur for several years back shortly after the turn of this century. As you've discovered, there are two versions available. Excalibur I, and II.
The differences are easy to describe. Excalibur I is the one with the pointy airfoil. A PA person, such as ourselves, will most likely shy away from this version as the airfoil looks strange, and contrary to what we expect. Dick Mathis, the designer, is from the ranks of competitive free flight. This wing uses elements from that background.
He used tabulator spars on the front portion of the wing, from the leading edge back to the main spar. The effect astonished me as I didn't believe the plane should be able to fly so well with it's strange airfoil, but fly very well it did. The only change I did was make what little leading edge there was a little blunter than shown on the plans. Powered with a Classic OS .35S on 62 foot lines and it was a potent performer in Classic, Profile, and Pampa class.
Excalibur II changed the wing as far as I've checked. My guess is that he might have gotten some feed back over the shape of the earlier wing.
The new wing uses a what appears to be a NACA symmetrical airfoil and uses leading edge sheeting rather than tabulator spars. It is not Classic legal but of course can be used in Profile, and Pampa classes.
I can recommend the Excalibur I as a very good choice for a triple-threat competition plane, recognizing that it is a 50-60 year old design, so, when you compete in modern PA classes you may have a slight up hill climb, but the design can shine in the right hands.
My experience with sharp LE's has not been good but the profile of the plane tickles my fancy at the end of the lines. That matters to me. If I don't like what I am looking at I don't fly it the same. Character flaw I guess.
I flew a lot of FF back in the day when Dick Mathis was a household word. Sharp LEs were on everything that was winning. We also used turbulators. Maybe he knew what he was doing. Still, I would rather have a good old 2 1/4" thick wing with molded 1/2" radius LE!
Ken
-
Dick Mathis, the designer, is from the ranks of competitive free flight. This wing uses elements from that background.
Hi John,
I am fairly certain you know that Dick Mathis was competitive in CL Stunt as well as in the FF classes. Indeed, he had several competitive FF models in various classes including 1/2A FF, tow line glider, several HL gliders that he was involved with their design as well as an all balsa A-2 towline glider that used a long piece of surgical tubing for a catapult launch which immediately led to a change in the rules that prohibited that.
He produced kits for several of his FF and CL designs.
He had a number of really nice flying profile ships, including the two versions of the Excaliber. He also did the Coyote (a good airplane), Cherokee, 140, Ercoupe, Citabria, Stuka, maybe more.
He had high flight points in Open Stunt at the 64 Dallas Nats, placing 4th with a model that was a predecessor of his Chizler. Then with the Chizler design, he placed 12th in 66, 2nd in 67, 8th in 68, 13th in 77 and 19th in 78. That is a resume that most CL pilots would be proud of, even without his success in the free flight realm.
After a long hiatus from model activities, he qualified and flew on the US Team to a World FF Championships in F1C (FF) in the mid 2000's.
Keith
-
Hi Keith,
You are correct Col, but I didn't know the depth of his CL Stunt exploits until now. I was one of the judges at VSC the year that the Chizlers showed up. They possessed the appearance of performing an outstanding corner and, as I recall, did very well in the scoring.
I've seen the Coyote fly but not the rest of his designs. It did darned good even though it was a flap less design. Wasn't his kit company called M&P?
Didn't you fly my Excalibur I to a win at Whittier Narrows? That plane flew way better than many believed it could with that airfoil.
John
-
You may want to consider Bob Gialdini's Rayette. It's got the looks, profile and a decent size, I think no flaps, and is classic legal.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
Profile Oriental has served John Paris very well in the Trifecta arena. y1
STAY SAFE! STAY WELL!
Happy Thanksgiving & "Tight Lines!" H^^
Wes
-
He had high flight points in Open Stunt at the 64 Dallas Nats, placing 4th with a model that was a predecessor of his Chizler.
I saw that flight. Corners like a kitchen cabinet. I think he got royally screwed on appearance points.
Ken
-
I saw that flight. Corners like a kitchen cabinet. I think he got royally screwed on appearance points.
Ken
Hi Ken,
I was essentially a beginner at that time. I participated in the Air Force World Wide Championships in Texas. The evening I got to the base, I think it was Perrin AFB, there was a guy there that was flying through the stunt pattern. I was stunned. I had never seen the pattern flown that way. It was Dick Mathis who was the CD for the Championships and he was training the stunt judges. Anyway, that was when I met him and that was a start of a comfortable relationship over the years. The airplane, an original, which was basically a "typical" configuration .35 size stunt ship. He told me about his experience at the Nats, where he had high flight points but finished 4th because of low appearance points. The airplane was covered with jap tissue with a little jap tissue trim, finished with clear dope. It was probably quite light. I can remember it showed it was nicely built and was really shiny. I thought it was quite attractive but had no idea of how appearance judging worked at a major contest. (Those were the days of 40 appearance points.) His original Chizler was also finished with clear over jap tissue which took 2nd to Bart Klapinski at the 67 Los Alimose Nats and was shown in his construction article in the Nov 66 Flying Models.
Keith
-
Hi Ken,
I was essentially a beginner at that time. I participated in the Air Force World Wide Championships in Texas. The evening I got to the base, I think it was Perrin AFB, there was a guy there that was flying through the stunt pattern. I was stunned. I had never seen the pattern flown that way. It was Dick Mathis who was the CD for the Championships and he was training the stunt judges. Anyway, that was when I met him and that was a start of a comfortable relationship over the years. The airplane, an original, which was basically a "typical" configuration .35 size stunt ship. He told me about his experience at the Nats, where he had high flight points but finished 4th because of low appearance points. The airplane was covered with jap tissue with a little jap tissue trim, finished with clear dope. It was probably quite light. I can remember it showed it was nicely built and was really shiny. I thought it was quite attractive but had no idea of how appearance judging worked at a major contest. (Those were the days of 40 appearance points.) His original Chizler was also finished with clear over jap tissue which took 2nd to Bart Klapinski at the 67 Los Alimose Nats and was shown in his construction article in the Nov 66 Flying Models.
Keith
Memory is an unreliable source that far back but I think it was yellow with black and orange trim. Personally I thought it was gorgeous. My plane was covered with Jap too but had a conventional finish.
There were problems with appearance that year. He was not the only one. They lost mine entirely -0-.
Ended up 6th 10 points out of first in Senior and there were others. Dick was not the only one with the really tight corners. Don Still was every bit as tight. It was not like today where the planes all look pretty much the same. Imagine Still's Stuka sitting next to Larry's Blue Angle.
Good old Perrin AFB. My father was retired AF at the time and we used to go to Perrin for our "stuff". I think they had F-102's. As a pesky teenager I loved watching the 102's almost as much as going to the BX which had a hobby section.
Allowances didn't last the day!
Ken
-
Ken, why not just build your Sandpiper profile again? You have plenty of posts on here laboring to show its classic provenance. You had a house fire. If someone at a contest has a problem with proof, that should be their problem. Direct them to this forum or show them a baggie of ashes. It is a gentleman's word and honor anyway, much like BOM.
-
Hi John,
I am fairly certain you know that Dick Mathis was competitive in CL Stunt as well as in the FF classes. Indeed, he had several competitive FF models in various classes including 1/2A FF, tow line glider, several HL gliders that he was involved with their design as well as an all balsa A-2 towline glider that used a long piece of surgical tubing for a catapult launch which immediately led to a change in the rules that prohibited that.
He produced kits for several of his FF and CL designs.
He had a number of really nice flying profile ships, including the two versions of the Excaliber. He also did the Coyote (a good airplane), Cherokee, 140, Ercoupe, Citabria, Stuka, maybe more.
Keith
I failed to mention several more of the CL designs of Dick Mathis. Of course, one was his Pinto. He also did a slow combat called the Mongoose (FM Mar,73). There was a solid wing profile sport ship called the Jaguar which was probably only for flying around the circle (FM, Dec 70) - a "sporty" looking thing, 30" span for .29 to .40 engines, wing mounted gear, rear fuselage profile like his Chizler. He also published an article that showed/explained the retract gear system he put into a Chizler (39oz). It used springs to retract and extend the gear, actuated by a timer (MA, Aug 78).
Keith
-
Ken, why not just build your Sandpiper profile again? You have plenty of posts on here laboring to show its classic provenance. You had a house fire. If someone at a contest has a problem with proof, that should be their problem. Direct them to this forum or show them a baggie of ashes. It is a gentleman's word and honor anyway, much like BOM.
I am working on plans as we type. It was a magnificent flier. The rebuild that got burned was 54oz with an LA46. I think I can redo that electric and have my Trifecta!
You know as time passes since the fire I am finding that it is more that cabinet full of plans drawings, pictures and templates form a lifetime of doing this that is the real loss.
Thanks for the moral support - Ken
-
John Saunders has been flying an electric powered Trophy Trainer recently. Good looking plane does a really nice pattern.
-
Walter Umland kits the Trophy Trainer, I believe. D>K
-
I think that another Mathis plane was the Mangler. It was profile with a solid wing. He stuck a Fox 35 on it and used it for sport flying. I liked the looks of it and built one for flight training kids. An Enya 19 pulls it fine. It must have been a shriek with a 35 on it!
Here are my mods for flight training:
Plans are available from either Flying Models or Model Aviation - can't remember which, sorry. It was originally designed for a Fox 35 to be used as a round-and-round sport plane. Simple modifications are necessary:
• Use lite-ply for the rudder and elevator (or use the lite-ply from the boxes of Clementines that you can find in the grocery stores.)
• Keep the original size of the horizontal stabilizer-elevator combination, but move the hinge line toward the rear so the elevator is only one inch in chord.
• Use a 3 inch bellcrank, pushrod in the inner hole
• Use a tall (inch and a quarter tall) control horn with the push-rod in the outer hole.
• Adjust pushrod length so you have a little more up than down.
• Use a nose doubler of half inch balsa that goes back to mid-wing.
• Power with a .19 or .25 (a .15 unless it's a late model, won't have the power you need)
• Use a 3/4 ounce tank. NO LARGER!! You only want to expose the kids to flying, not sate their appetite. 10 laps is more than plenty for a first time flyer. Not enough laps to get them dizzy or into trouble.
• Fly on 51 or 52 foot .015 lines.
This airplane builds quickly if you leave off the wing-tip tanks as shown on Mathis' plan and just buy Flight Streak Trainer wing blanks from Brodaks. They are already air-foiled and ready to go!
-
Just build it profile , and tell them the fuse. got run over before fitting. Or you used the wrong grade of sandpaper . Regulations are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of feuls .
-
Let's say for argument that I have a profile that fits all three. Would using logarithmic flaps disqualify it from Classic?
Just asking - Ken
-
It shouldn't disqualify it any more than the fantastic AAC PA Aero-Tiger 36 and other modern engines, carbon props, embedded carbon rods, carbon spar enhancements, 4" bellcranks, adjustable carbon pushrods, geometry corrected flap/adjustable elevator horns, adjustable leadouts, automotive 2k clear, hardpoint handles, CA glue and/or electric power should have anything to do with the "spirit of the event.".... To allow all these non-classic era performance advancements in classic era planes and then fuss over the flap system would be a grand irony. LOL!
-
It shouldn't disqualify it any more than the fantastic AAC PA Aero-Tiger 36 and other modern engines, carbon props, embedded carbon rods, carbon spar enhancements, 4" bellcranks, adjustable carbon pushrods, geometry corrected flap/adjustable elevator horns, adjustable leadouts, automotive 2k clear, hardpoint handles, CA glue and/or electric power should have anything to do with the "spirit of the event.".... To allow all these non-classic era performance advancements in classic era planes and then fuss over the flap system would be a grand irony. LOL!
I quite agree but it never hurts to ask first, then build! n1
Wow,, seeing that list really makes me feel old! However, I did have a 4" bellcrank in my Sandpiper profile that I am building for Classic now - in 1968. Hand Made.
-
Isn’t Joe Gilbert whupping a** with a Ringmaster? That may be the ultimate trifecta. A little carbon here, a modern engine there, what’s not to like?
-
I failed to mention several more of the CL designs of Dick Mathis. Of course, one was his Pinto. He also did a slow combat called the Mongoose (FM Mar,73). There was a solid wing profile sport ship called the Jaguar which was probably only for flying around the circle (FM, Dec 70) - a "sporty" looking thing, 30" span for .29 to .40 engines, wing mounted gear, rear fuselage profile like his Chizler. He also published an article that showed/explained the retract gear system he put into a Chizler (39oz). It used springs to retract and extend the gear, actuated by a timer (MA, Aug 78).
Keith
Hi Keith,
Dick's "Otto the Giro" was the biggest selling kit I ever produced. There is a long and fun story about getting that kit produced and my phone conversation with Dick about it.
Mike
-
There is a long and fun story about getting that kit produced and my phone conversation with Dick about it.
Mike: don't leave us hanging.....Let's hear it!
A guy in our club built an Auto the Gyro years ago and we are still waiting to see him fly it.
-
Hey Scott, I will take some time in the next couple of days and type it out. Up to my rear end in alligators right now with family things.
Mike
-
Call me crazy but with nothing to build you think up some strange things to plan. I am going to build my twin tail Sandpiper for next year as my "trifecta" I want to add a "Rabe" rudder. My only question is should I add it to both rudders or only one and if so which one. The linkage is simple so I don't need any help with that.
Thanks - Ken
-
Call me crazy but with nothing to build you think up some strange things to plan. I am going to build my twin tail Sandpiper for next year as my "trifecta" I want to add a "Rabe" rudder. My only question is should I add it to both rudders or only one and if so which one. The linkage is simple so I don't need any help with that.
Thanks - Ken
Ok, you're crazy. n~ LL~
-
Ken,
if you don't do both aren't you defeating the purpose in the first place? Won't they be fighting each other?
Craig
-
Ken,
if you don't do both aren't you defeating the purpose in the first place? Won't they be fighting each other?
Craig
My purpose is to create a very small yaw in maneuvers and a slightly larger one in corners. Neither are visible and they add a little line tension where we usually loose some which results in a more even feel, especially in the OH8. I was concerned that having only one rudder moving might cause some other problem. With two I can cut the movement in half but the extra linkage will add weight, or save adding weight, not sure which.
With the cam I can get about 1/32" deflection in rounds and 1/8" in corners with zero in level flight. The beauty of this setup is that I can easily change the amount of movement for inside and outside independently.
I am wondering if anyone has used both a cam rudder and an accelerometer, not necessarily together. I have only flown one flight with an accelerometer but the feel was very similar, especially in the squares.
Ken
-
Robby:
Here are the "pictures". These are of the 2016 rebuild. I lost all of my older drawings and pictures in the fire.
Ken
-
Ken go build your Sandpiper!! If you consider ISIS, Russian Computer Hacking Plots, Viruses escaping from Labs in China; a guy trying to get his old Profile Model Airplane into a contest, ranks pretty darn low on the dastardly deeds scale.
-
Ken go build your Sandpiper!! If you consider ISIS, Russian Computer Hacking Plots, Viruses escaping from Labs in China; a guy trying to get his old Profile Model Airplane into a contest, ranks pretty darn low on the dastardly deeds scale.
It is in the works. The attached picture is for Brent Williams. It is the Original Full body in 1964. Sorry about the 1964 camera quality converting to digital. It was Candy Apple Red.
Ken
-
Was there a profile version of a design prior to 1970? If not, then it's technically not Classic legal as a profile. But then, there is also nothing in the Classic rules that allows the CD to disqualify a model for any modifications.
Personally, I'd feel ok with changing the wing offset and fiddling with the flap areas to correct built-in bad trim. Otherwise, no changes, other than controls and power. IMO, if you're going to allow electric power in Classics, then you also have to allow tuned piped IC setups. D>K Steve
-
Was there a profile version of a design prior to 1970? If not, then it's technically not Classic legal as a profile. But then, there is also nothing in the Classic rules that allows the CD to disqualify a model for any modifications.
Personally, I'd feel ok with changing the wing offset and fiddling with the flap areas to correct built-in bad trim. Otherwise, no changes, other than controls and power. IMO, if you're going to allow electric power in Classics, then you also have to allow tuned piped IC setups. D>K Steve
There was. Built in 1967. Lost to who knows where when I got drafted. No pictures back then unless it was a special occasion. Chances are it will never see VSC or anything like and if anybody complains I will just not fly, or loosen their wheel collars LL~.
Ken
-
Ken: is that your own design? Pretty neat for a kid in high-school (I'm guessing at your age based on the pictures.)
-
Ken: is that your own design? Pretty neat for a kid in high-school (I'm guessing at your age based on the pictures.)
100% It is a blend of all the features I liked from the era. The twin tails were added to butter up my step dad. He was in a B-25 squadron in WWII.
Ken
-
100% It is a blend of all the features I liked from the era. The twin tails were added to butter up my step dad. He was in a B-25 squadron in WWII.
Ken
Sounds like an excellent choice for a 3-fer, now that you've reminded us/me that you had a profile version in '67. It looks like it'd fly well, and we have expert testimony on that!
Where was your step dad stationed in WWII? Mine flew B-25's out of Palawan, Philippines. y1 Steve
-
Sounds like an excellent choice for a 3-fer, now that you've reminded us/me that you had a profile version in '67. It looks like it'd fly well, and we have expert testimony on that!
Where was your step dad stationed in WWII? Mine flew B-25's out of Palawan, Philippines. y1 Steve
He never talked about it much but I do know he was the maintenance officer for Pappy Gunn in Australia. That he talked about.
Ken
-
First part of build! The adjustable profile logarithmic flap horn. If the house building Gods smile on me I will have a shop again sometime in late Spring. Till then I make do-dads in a tiny corner of my office. It was easier to make than I thought. Should have waited to bend the horn wire. Think I am going to regret that one but I so wanted to test my new wire bender.
Ken
Update - I decided top make the entire control system out of the plane and test it. Ball Bearings on all both horns and the elevator horn. So smooth and solid.
Ken
-
Time for an update. Building in a 4 x 4 office cubicle is a real pain but progress is being made.
Ken
-
Ken,
Your model looks great! I like the fuselage and the nose work.
Kim
-
Ken,
Your model looks great! I like the fuselage and especially the nose.
I assume that the pushrod we see on the stab is part of your KT rudder actuator. Even for this use I would not use a piece of all-thread. Get a piece of 4/40 threaded wire, eliminate the connector and use one run of wire. All-thread should never be bent or used over a distance.
Kim
Thanks! It *is* music wire. It has to have the ball link if the drive mechanism is not in line with the cam. Normally the pushrod drives the cam directly but it is a profile. The pressure on that pushrod is next to nothing. Mounting the logarithmic horn was easier that I thought. I used ball bearings mounted on the inside of the fuselage sides. Solid as it gets and smooooth. The hard/fun part is going to be making the hatch to change cams. I am trying a lot of new things (to me) on this plane.
Ken
-
Glad to hear you are making progress!
-
Thanks! It *is* music wire. It has to have the ball link if the drive mechanism is not in line with the cam. Normally the pushrod drives the cam directly but it is a profile. The pressure on that pushrod is next to nothing. Mounting the logarithmic horn was easier that I thought. I used ball bearings mounted on the inside of the fuselage sides. Solid as it gets and smooooth. The hard/fun part is going to be making the hatch to change cams. I am trying a lot of new things (to me) on this plane.
Ken
Ken
Sorry, when I enlarged the pic on my phone a very distinct “thread” pattern showed up on the wire. I blew it up to see what was going on right at the horn.
Kim
-
Ken:
What's that small horn for? What does it do? (the one in the center of the horn that the pushrod doesn't attach to)
Thanks!
-
Ken:
What's that small horn for? What does it do? (the one in the center of the horn that the pushrod doesn't attach to)
Thanks!
It drives the CAM rudder. Since it is a profile I can't use the pushrod like you can on a full body. As it turns out I had to reverse it and drive the cam from the top of the elevator.
-
It drives the CAM rudder. Since it is a profile I can't use the pushrod like you can on a full body. As it turns out I had to reverse it and drive the cam from the top of the elevator.
Thanks Ken. Can you post some pictures of the details of how that operates? I just rebuilt on of my planes and want to install a Rabe Rudder, but am having a real challenge due to the geometries.
-
Thanks Ken. Can you post some pictures of the details of how that operates? I just rebuilt on of my planes and want to install a Rabe Rudder, but am having a real challenge due to the geometries.
This is an adaptation of Keith Trostle's CAM rudder which was inspired by the Rabe. The CAM allows you to trim the rudder for both upright and inverted. The one in that picture gives me 1/16" extra on upright maneuvers immediately and 1/16" on outside increasing to 3/16" at 30 degrees. I think if you search "CAM Rudder" you will find some details and I know I posted a short video of the one I had in my Endgame design. This one is not representative since I had to mount it on the top of my stab to drive a twin rudder on a profile. Normally it would be under the stab and driven by the pushrod directly. You can get a similar effect from a Rabe if you mount the horn in line with the stab and drive it from the centerline of the elevator. It just won't be proportionally adjustable.
You might be shocked at how little rudder it takes to give noticeable results. Those tiny amounts I use are enough to tighten the lines in the rounds and overheads yet produce no visible yaw. The extra on outsides is for procession.
Keith did a full article for this which is also here somewhere.
Ken
-
Thanks Ken. Can you post some pictures of the details of how that operates? I just rebuilt on of my planes and want to install a Rabe Rudder, but am having a real challenge due to the geometries.
Scott,
If you have plans for any of Al Rabe's designs, you will see that these will show that all of his linkages to the rudder were external. He had a small horn on the bottom of the elevator and another small horn on the side of the rudder with a small pushrod between the two. Different rudder travel response to elevator control could be achieved by using different locations on the horn for the pushrod attachments. Unfortuntely, the geometry of the positions of the horns makes it difficult to get the actual response you might want with the rudder. Also, this system often results in rudder response being far in excess of what you really are looking for. (This is one reason for some who have tried this approach have found it to be undesirable.) I know of at least two people who found that having the pushrod connection to the elevator somewhere near the chord line of the elevator, still with an external horn on the rudder, gave the rudder response that worked for them. This gave them the capability to have only slightly more right rudder on insides. In other words, the elevator connection is not offset or not as much like results from using a horn.
The purpose of these things is to get slightly more right rudder on outside maneuvers. Rabe's approach did this. His system also decreased right rudder on inside maneuvers. This also works in some cases, at least it worked well for him. But there are other approaches that minimizes right rudder on insides or can be found to improve overall control by no rudder movement on insides or even slightly more right rudder on insides.
I repeat that I know that Al's system worked for him. I do not understand all of the interactions going on between desirable rudder movement on inside and outside maneuvers when maneuvering on our hemisphere, but do know that Al trimmed his airplanes to be nose heavy and used a really large line spacing at the handle. His combination of balance, handle spacing and his rudder movement worked for his airplanes. I have flown several of Al's Mustangs and one of his original Bearcats, one of those Mustangs he flew to placed second at the 78 World Championships. Other than getting familiar to the larger handle, the airplanes were a pleasure to fly and were an eye opener on the effectiveness of the movable rudder.
Keith
-
..something like this, totally off scale. I’ll make a better drawing when my fuselage gets ready.. L
I think you may be onto something if you are after more movement but I think the "tiller" approach is still easier. One way to find out - make one!
Too bad we can't use "fly by wire". We could just couple the elevator and rudder on the transmitter.
Ken
-
Don't discount a light, well built and well powered Ringmaster. I can't think of any stunt event that one couldn't fly a ringmaster in. I even think some dude in Tulsa flew the team trials a few years ago with an enlarged version...
-
Don't discount a light, well built and well powered Ringmaster. I can't think of any stunt event that one couldn't fly a ringmaster in. I even think some dude in Tulsa flew the team trials a few years ago with an enlarged version...
Joe is one of those unusually gifted natural fliers. If he showed up with a Cox PT-19 I would still like his chances to win. I need something a bit more robust.
Ken
-
Update. Fuselage and tail assembly complete. Starting to look like an airplane. I have a BadAss 3515 coming. Pretty sure the timer is going to be the Fiorotti with a Spin44 or 66 ESC. I have hooked up the controls and they are fall down smooth. I have never used ball bearings on horns before but I think I will from now on. A lot of work but the results are measurable. The wing is still a question mark. I don't know if I can build a straight one in my tight quarters . I am really looking forward to flying a plane with logarithmic flaps. About the only thing on this plane that is not "state of the art" will be the pilot!
Ken
-
Ken: nice workmanship! You'll have to let us know how that control system works for you.
-
Take a Umland Francherized Twister kit and scale down the tips and tail of the trophy trainer and you'd have a great looking airplane with a modern airfoil/numbers. That would be an awesome profile for an LA 46 or an Eflite Power 15.
Motorman 8)
Definitely a good plane. I need something a bit more robust for PA. It is not that different from a Fancherized Twister which is a great practice plane but not quite up to the consistency required for PA. This will be my third profile Sandpiper. #2 was powered by an LA46, flew several PA events and performed as well as it's full bodied competitors. All it needed was a better pilot!
Ken
-
Things are progressing. Frontend is loaded with wires and stuff. It all works BadAss 3515-710, Spin44Pro, Fiorotti 6x timer. It all works. Got the wood for the wing which I am doing last because once it has a wing I am going to want to fly it and a lot of the "do dads" will just get skipped. Happens every time with me. So, I have looked(searched) the site trying to find what the initial settings should be for this combination. I have had no luck. Any help would be appreciated. There has to be a Cheat Sheet on somebody's workbench somewhere.
Ken
-
Update - Started Wing today. Going Old School. Not much room for a proper Jig so I am using some old fashioned methods. Halves built separately on arrow shaft jigs. Aghhh..... Having a shop with a real jig table is on my bucket list. But so is returning to the NATs, visiting Switzerland and an evening with Alessandra Ambrosio. I think I will run out of years first.
Ken
-
Ken:
Those are good looking ribs! I like those blunt noses - really good aerodynamics.
They remind me of something familiar....let's see what is it? .... just on the tip of my tongue... ;D
-
Ken:
Those are good looking ribs! I like those blunt noses - really good aerodynamics.
They remind me of something familiar....let's see what is it? .... just on the tip of my tongue... ;D
LL~ LL~ LL~
-
PLEASE tell us about your date with Alessandra Ambrosio, and what she thinks of your stunt pattern! VD~ Steve
-
Making the wing "Old School". No room for a proper Jig. Good old Arrow shafts holding hand cut ribs. What could go wrong?
BC Mount installed today. Mount attaches to the spar bottom then the spaces above and below are filled with scrap balsa. Mount glues to underside of wing LE sheeting. This BC ain't coming out.
Ken
-
PLEASE tell us about your date with Alessandra Ambrosio, and what she thinks of your stunt pattern! VD~ Steve
She bailed, doesn't want a square getting her caught in a triangle. LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~
-
Update and Tip Weight question. Finally got the wing built. Doing using an old fashioned jig in a space way too small resulted in some washout. Not much, just enough that I am really happy that I have adjustable everything in controls. Starting to look like a plane.
My tip weight question is "Where does it go relative to the CG?" I have always put the box just behind the spar. On this one that would be a good 2" behind the CG. My gut tells me that it should go just a bit in front of the CG but I can't explain why. I suspect that the leadout position matters but that can change, the tip weight position in pretty fixed in most. For what it is worth, my outboard flap on this one is about 3sq. in. larger than the inboard. Both of the recent rebuilds needed a 1/2 x 6" wart so I built it in to this one. Pix in post #41. I went with the tips from the original full body. (post #43). I was reminded that the wing for the profile came from the fullbody with the damaged LG removed. Classic being the first leg of the Trifecta, I caved. I have used nothing but swept tips since the 60's.
One other thought. We have been obsessed with all kinds of turbulation recently. For reasons I preferr to keep between me and my sanding block I am going to add a 1/32" cap to the LE. What would be the effect of leaving the ridge? (pix lower right)
Ken
Follow up - it went "or here" and I decided to skip the cap and just fill in the LE.
-
My tip weight question is "Where does it go relative to the CG?" I have always put the box just behind the spar. On this one that would be a good 2" behind the CG. My gut tells me that it should go just a bit in front of the CG but I can't explain why.
Ken
It would make sense to place the tip weight as close to the lateral CG position as possible so as to not change the lateral CG. However, placing the weight 1" or 2" in front of that lateral CG position would not make much difference because of the moments involved. Position a 1/4oz tip weight 1 " behind the lateral CG would hardly have the effect of that 1/4 oz weight in the tail 24" or so behind the CG.
Keith
-
Put the weight box in front of the spar. Think of it this way: if you put it in the wrong position (adding weight behind or in front of the CG when you needed opposite balancing weight) the moment arm of the tail will allow you to add less weight to the plane than having to add it to the nose to rebalance. Hopefully this explanation is easy to follow.
-
It is going in the front 1/4" in front of the sheeting (the box will be made from 1/4" bass so I can screw on the hatch easily. What is the point of making a light weight box anyway. Keith is right but I was not as concerned with the weight affecting the CG as I was yaw. Having the weight ahead of the leadouts will add to inward yaw. I suspect the effects are minimal anyway but the little things do adds up.
Let me repost my other question from post #8 since it is equally important at the moment:
What would be the effect of leaving the ridge? (pix lower right)
Ken
-
It is going in the front 1/4" in front of the sheeting (the box will be made from 1/4" bass so I can screw on the hatch easily. What is the point of making a light weight box anyway. Keith is right but I was not as concerned with the weight affecting the CG as I was yaw. Having the weight ahead of the leadouts will add to yaw. I suspect the effects are minimal but the little things do adds up.
Let me repost my other question from reply #76 since it is equally important at the moment:
What would be the effect of leaving the ridge? (pix lower right)
Ken
-
Slip fitted the wing after all the changes. Never had one align on the 1st try. Maybe it is an omen. Now I have to decide on the flap hinges. Round TE, Triangle TE, imbedded. So many choices, so little time.
Ken
-
Ken:
Maybe it's the lighting, but in your last photo the leading edge looks like it has a sharp corner, rather than a radius. Are you rounding that? (Or does it only appear to be a corner?) The reason I bring this up is that you were asking about a ridge further back on the leading edge. I'd think that a sharp leading edge would have much more effect (negatively) than a ridge further back.
-
Ken:
Maybe it's the lighting, but in your last photo the leading edge looks like it has a sharp corner, rather than a radius. Are you rounding that? (Or does it only appear to be a corner?) The reason I bring this up is that you were asking about a ridge further back on the leading edge. I'd think that a sharp leading edge would have much more effect (negatively) than a ridge further back.
It is the lighting and the center strip of the LE that makes it look sharp. It has a 3/8" radius which is quite blunt.
Ken
-
Sounds like you are good then. The plane is shaping up nicely. Can't wait to see it in color.
-
Sounds like you are good then. The plane is shaping up nicely. Can't wait to see it in color.
MEE TOO! I have stolen a color pattern from an RC 3D Edge. It looks cool. I will post a sketch tomorrow and some alternates. It is nice to be able to get feedback.
Ken
-
Hinged the Flaps Friday. Used undersized full span hinge wire. They flop like cloth hinges.
Ken
-
I like the looks of those flaps with their cross-thatched ribs! Even though the answer might be obvious, I'll ask anyway: what were your steps in building them?
-
I like the looks of those flaps with their cross-thatched ribs! Even though the answer might be obvious, I'll ask anyway: what were your steps in building them?
1/4" core with 1/16" x 1/4" caps on the LE recessed 1/16" to allow rounding. 1/8" CF strip centered on TE. 1/16" shims on underside of TE. Cut out center except where the hinges go. Crosshatch using 3/8" strips on 1" centers. Sand "taper" from top of cap to top of CF TE. Flaps are same length but the outboard has a 1/8" wider chord.
Since I don't have a workbench everything was build without a jig. (First flight will be in an undisclosed location LL~). Pretty simple with CA and glass. The CA will sort of stick to glass and you have a defacto jig as soon as you glue the first "rib" Pops right off with a single edge razor blade when you are done.
Ken
-
Finally assembled. Debating whether to MonoKote fuselage or paint. Paint is a problem in the office so I am most likely going MonoKote - tomorrow. Trim will be Rustoleum. I have drawn up about 20 paint schemes, these are the remaining two.
ken
-
Ken:
I vote for the paint scheme on the right for its visibility (I am looking specifically at its side-view, the pilot doesn't see the top-view during flight.) I think that it catches the eye better and would be easier to follow through the pattern.
-
I like the right one as well
-
I like the right one as well
The Right one wins - However, I reserve the right to adjust it during the masking. LL~
Ken
PS: This is more of a question to others out there that judge. One thing I have noticed is that if the top wing pattern is different from the bottom pattern and there is enough offset from where the pilot does a maneuver and where I am standing I get the impression of a flat when the planes pattern changes. It is especially noticeable to me in the loops and V8 I have videoed some that I thought were flats and played it back in slow motion and there was no flat, it was an optical illusion. However, optical illusions are real when you only have less than 10 seconds to judge a maneuver. I have always either left the bottom in base color (which in itself is a different pattern) or repeated most of the top pattern on the bottom. This is the first time I plan to do a "reverse" color on the bottom.
Any thoughts?
Ken
-
I have not noticed that when I have judged.
-
Finally Ready for test flights! With 20oz of power related stuff and 1oz opening tip weight she weighs in at 59oz. The logarithmic controls are really smooth. 3" of leadout travel gives me 45 degrees on the elevator. From what I can measure it looks like I get 20 degrees flap at 20 degrees elevator and 30 degrees flap at 45 degrees elevator. The best of both worlds. I am really looking forward to having tighter corners. As far as I know, this will be the first logarithmic setup in the Dallas area.
https://youtu.be/E3TjTxjLw1E
It will be airborne by the end of September. I almost had it finished for the Southwesterns which I had to miss anyway due to a Covid scare so I am skipping the pre finish test and getting the color on. 15' finish!
The little holes in the side of the fuselage are screwdriver holes to tighten the numerous parts of the controls.
Ken
-
Ken
Nice looking plane,, you're gonna love it.
...... but, although Houston isn't really Dallas area, I too have been playing with a very similar setup to test the Igor Log. Great minds think alike I guess. See the attachment.
I built this a couple of years ago, and due to some health problems, didn't get to test till this year. I had some motor issues also, trying to be too cute by half. Should have put an ST60 on to begin with, but that another story.
The bottom line is that, after flying it for just a little bit, I really began to feel that the Igor Log was real. Smooth rounds and snappy corners that just jump out of nowhere. I'd be interested to get your impressions.
I used a grooved roller bearing in a wire loop like it appears you did. I kept the dimensions of the IgorLog mechanism. I built mine from a Mobest kit (Griffin) and modded it with a longer tail and more tail area. The MoBest wing is an excellent wing to start DIY designs from.
Good Looking Plane ... hope to see you all after the Covid.
Frank
-
Frank,
You are scaring me using Quick Links!
-
Frank,
You are scaring me using Quick Links!
It's OK, they are adjustable. LL~
Ken
-
Finally to the "Crying and Shouting" stage and getting plenty of both. I am invoking the 10' rule. Trying to finish, mask and paint this thing at my office has left it looking just slightly worse than my first monokote job 50 years ago. However from 10' or soon to be, in the air I think it will shine. The rest of the wing and the stab will get the same look.
Ken
-
More Crying, some shouting. I think my love affair with checkerboard has hit a rough spot. I may skip the elevator. One piece of advice to those who use Roberts Pockets - make sure the elevator is not upside down when you glue them in.
-
Ken:
Don't beat yourself up too much. We all start with these great dreams and high hopes for our next great stuntship. And then reality sets in: hanger rash, a slip of the knife, too enthusiastic sanding, etc.
I think it looks good! Carry on!
-
HI Ken. LOVE that scheme. I may even steal it for one of my profiles. Slightly modified of coarse. Don't want to be too blatant.. LL~ y1 H^^
You are welcome to it! I can't remember where I stole it from. LL~ It is intended to look good in the air.
Ken
-
Nearing completion. If the ESC(Spin 44) and Timer (Fiorotti) were programmed I could fly it today. A few more trim do-dads AMA number and the name on the wing and it shifts from building to trimming.
Ken
-
60 Oz, ready to fly! Someday I will probably recover it if it flys as well as it should. Building in my office was difficult. Applying a finish was impossible. But - here it is! 2 weeks after the contest it was built for LL~
I have a question about flap area near the fuselage. Because of the logarithmic setup, the inside flap had to be just over an inch from the fuselage. Now that the design is finished I have rearranged some of the bolt patterns so that about 1/2" of that space can be recovered. What I am curious about is will that have any noticeable effect? I think not but, being MonoKoted, adding that 1/2" back would be easy.
-
I am restating this since I didn't get any response from modifying an old post.
I have a question about flap area near the fuselage. Because of the logarithmic setup, the inside flap had to be just over an inch from the fuselage. Now that the design is finished I have rearranged some of the bolt patterns so that about 1/2" of that space can be recovered. What I am curious about is will that have any noticeable effect? I think not but, being MonoKoted, adding that 1/2" back would be easy.
Ken
-
I suspect the difference will be small to un-noticable.
Consider this an opportunity to do a small experiment. Fly it as is and then do the fix and see if you notice any difference other than confirmation bias. Since the flying experience is a very subjective thing (if you've judged much you've probably had that experience where someone puts in an awful flight but is upset with their scores since they thought it was great...)
Confirmation bias makes this whole thing tricky because:
1) if you expect to feel a difference in flight characteristics pre and post change, you are likely to find one
2) if you don't expect to experience any change in flight characteristics, you'll likely not
It will be interesting to hear your report!
-
Ken,
Since you lose the area on the inboard flap it should allow you to carry more tip weight. Some designs had the outboard flap 1/8" wider then the inboard to allow the extra tip weight, this was thought to help in the wind. I agree with Scott, fly it and see but start with simple maneuvers - climbs, dives, 3/4 wing over and a few loops. If ok try a big lazy 8 but be prepared to move back when you flip it inverted. Stretch the 8 out until you feel comfortable inverted the do a couple laps inverted to get the wings level and do some outsides. After that if all is good you should be ready to do some vertical 8's and the rest of the pattern. Let us know how it flies.
Best, DennisT
-
Thanks guys. I already have the extra 1/8" on the outboard flap. If it flies well on the first trim flights I will probably leave it as-is since the consensus seems to be that that area close to the fuselage is probably not affecting much.
Now for something considerably more important LL~
Does the tail need more trim? USA is going on the rudders.
(if you've judged much you've probably had that experience where someone puts in an awful flight but is upset with their scores since they thought it was great...) I have been on both sides of that one!
Ken
-
Does the tail need more trim? USA is going on the rudders.
Horizontal stab and elevator look a bit bare compared to the wings.
Rudder with "USA" on it should be fine.
-
I am restating this since I didn't get any response from modifying an old post.
I have a question about flap area near the fuselage. Because of the logarithmic setup, the inside flap had to be just over an inch from the fuselage. Now that the design is finished I have rearranged some of the bolt patterns so that about 1/2" of that space can be recovered. What I am curious about is will that have any noticeable effect? I think not but, being MonoKoted, adding that 1/2" back would be easy.
Ken
Ken, I did similar here
https://stunthanger.com/smf/gettin-all-amp'ed-up!/another-dog-another-'tric-fiorotti-v4-4-timer-with-accelerometer/
I filled in the gap with a piece keyed into the flap, both for similar area, and I thought it looked better with the gap closed. It worked fine, but probably will be fine without. I had a removable piece and used thin clear tape to attach. You can see it in the picture above.
-
She is no longer a virgin. 2 trim flights with better than expected results. A slight tweak of the inboard flap (screw adjustable) and the wings were level. Tracks better than anything I have built. CG came out at 25% MAC which is a bit tail heavy for electric but you would never know it from the way it tracks level and locked out of the turns I did. I was really surprised how much the logarithmic flaps changed the corners. Only did 8 on the two short test hops but I could clearly feel the difference.
I want to thank everybody that has encouraged me through this crazy build and especially Fred for helping me get the ESC and timer talking to each other yesterday. Fred - you were right, the blinking light didn't bother me at all and I noticed immediately when it went solid. I also turned off GForce and Nose Up till I have it trimmed upstairs. The base settings on the ESC gave it a 5.1 on 62' lines with solid, but not excessive, pull. This is a bit fast for me, I am a 5.4 kind of guy, but it flew so well that I am going to keep it there for the next session. Todays test was using .018 19 strand lines but I plan on flying it on .0145 3 strand once I have basic trim.
Next time out we do patterns!
Proof of Life:
https://youtu.be/gAHKnmUMSlc
Ken
-
Great to see you and Trifecta out and flying!
Happy to hear that you have the timer working to your liking. Did you get the soft start up working? I couldn't quite tell from the video. If you did, please post the Start Up setting that works.
-
Great to see you and Trifecta out and flying!
Happy to hear that you have the timer working to your liking. Did you get the soft start up working? I couldn't quite tell from the video. If you did, please post the Start Up setting that works.
Hard to tell if it is working and still set too fast. I can control it as is but I would like about 5' more slow roll. Right now it is set at +10. It doesn't leap at you like it did at +-0 but I am waiting till we hear from someone that knows. I am one of those idiots that does squares after an accumulated air time of 15 seconds. I wanted that on the video so I could check for hinging but all I got was Mike's thumb. Such is life.
You were right on about the light. On the Huben you get that RPM drop warning. If you were doing something when it came on, or off I guess, it could be dangerous. With the light, you know if you start a maneuver with it blinking you have enough time to finish. I already like it. Now to figure out what is making that disturbing noise on takeoff and landing. Sounds like I lost a wheel and it was running on the hub. All three wheels in tact and rolling smooth and no marks on the prop. Time to pop the hatch and see how we did temperature and RPM wise.
Ken
-
Congratulations on getting airborne!
-
Congratulations on getting airborne!
Thanks! It was such a glorious feeling to take MY plane out of MY car and hook up MY lines after 22 months of sporatic OPP flights that I almost forgot that it was her first flight too I was supposed to be nervous and careful. It almost scares me that I wasn't - either nervous or careful. The Sandpiper Trifecta is everything I hoped it would be.
This part is really for Fred Underwood:
ESC (JETTI Spin44 Pro )Readouts:
Max Temp 55c (132f)
Max Volts 18.69
Min Volts 16.50
Motor Run 59 sec
Power On 1:43 sec
Max RPM 5,610 - I ran this prop on a Cobra 3520 at 7,500+-
Max Prop 5,610 Is this a legitimate RPM for that prop with a 5.1 lap time on 65' lines (C-C)
No Errors
Timer Settings (Firorotti v.6)
RPM PWM 215
Nose Up Off
G-Force Off
Sensitivity 17
RPM Max 216 1.632ms
RPM Min 016 1.232ms
Sensor Normal
Lines 19 strand .018 62' Actual
Motor BadAss 3515-710KV
Prop MAS 11-6 3 Blade
Ken
-
I doubt the rpm is accurate or even a close approximation, especially in light of your known number for the prop on the 3520. If the prop had no slippage and gave 6" per rev, that would be about 2800'/min or 47'/sec far below where we fly.
See email about timer and max and min needed change.
-
Hi Ken,
I'm glad I was able to configure your ESC with Fred's support.
I advise not setting the RPM too close to 1,200ms depending on the setting of ESC it may trip, as you set the SET RPM at 215 try RPM MAX 235 and RPM MIN 115.
Congratulations on Trifecta, here we say it was SHOW.
Rogerio
-
Hi Ken,
I'm glad I was able to configure your ESC with Fred's support.
I advise not setting the RPM too close to 1,200ms depending on the setting of ESC it may trip, as you set the SET RPM at 215 try RPM MAX 235 and RPM MIN 115.
Congratulations on Trifecta, here we say it was SHOW.
Rogerio
Those settings gave me a 5.1 on 62' lines. The speed seems about right for the plane so I am going to go to 65' lines and hopefully that will give me a 5.3. The light is going to take some getting used to but I already like it. The pattern I put the link below was the first time the plane went over 45 or inverted. I had G-Force and Nose Up turned off per Fred's advice. I see why now. It was a bit light up there and I had to open things up a bit. Once I turn both settings on I should see a huge improvement overhead. The logarithmic was a real surprise, actually it was a bit unnerving. The handle "feel" that the plane is going to make the corner is totally different. I flew up to about 50 degrees to give me room for those first corners. I did a really high RWO since the plane had never been inverted to give me an out. What felt like huge corners when I was flying them are really quite tight on the video. The over turn on the first corner of the hourglass was 100% the logarithmic. It will take some getting used to.
I will keep you posted through this thread. Maybe others will get something from your responses. Let's just say the 1st impression of the timer is good.
Trifecta is a reality - finally. Please don't be too critical of the pattern. It was her first time over 45 and first time inverted. My brain will adapt to the logarithmic soon enough and intersections and the like will get back in the same zip code! The color commentary is none other than Matt Colan.
https://youtu.be/YV-qplgVE0Y
Ken
-
Looking great. Just some tweaks and it's a contender
-
ESC (Spin 44) results from first full pattern. 8-10 mph wind flown biased into the wind due to sun.
Max Temp 70c Higher than I would like but well within limits. Added some airflow under.
Max Volts 20.80 TP 5s 2800 25c battery Warm on landing, not hot. 23% left
Min Volts 17.52
Run Time 5:39 Have cut to 5:35
Power On 6:26
Max RPM 9280 Airspeed feels right but lap time 5.1 so I am going from 62' to 65' lines.
Fred - you were correct that the RPM's from the trim flights were inaccurate. Does anyone know on the Spin ESCs which side should be in on a profile. Just looking at it I would think the label side since it is flat. I want max airflow over the side needing the most cooling.
Ken
Next flights turn on g-force and trim overhead.
-
When I look at a few brands of ESCs, including Jeti, it looks like the smooth side with the label is the heat sink/aluminum plate. The other side is soldering on the board. I put the label in the airflow or facing out.
-
When I look at a few brands of ESCs, including Jeti, it looks like the smooth side with the label is the heat sink/aluminum plate. The other side is soldering on the board. I put the label in the airflow or facing out.
Fred, here is the full set. If anybody else accidently finds this thread and has some feedback on these settings, I am all Ears. After 60 years flying Stunt, I am a freshman with this stuff.
Ken
-
Settings look fine. I like to fly the timer with sensitivity, max and min for several outings and have that optimized before using nose up or g-force. Just my preference to learn what sensitivity and max and min can do.
I would start with G-force 5, again to see how it works so that you can later understand what each adjustment can do to fine tune to your liking.
My preference would be to use sensitivity and then get the lap time and line length to where you want it before using the other functions. I like to have trim and lap time essentially done, first. But that is my preference and all said, the settings are ok.
-
IT IS FINISHED! I held interviews for the pilot figure. This guy's response when I told him what he would be doing won him the job!
Ken
-
Just my preference to learn what sensitivity and max and min can do.
Weather willing I m going to get a few flights in next week. My goal is to get my basic power settings right. The planes airspeed is where it seems comfortable but the lap times are 5.1 which is faster than I like. I am a 5.3 - 5.4 kind of guy so I am going from 62' .018 19 strand to 65' .0145 3 strand. The extra length and the reduced drag and weight should cancel enough to get me to a 5.3. If it doesn't then I am going to have to mess with the timer. Let me confirm what I think I know about the three RPM settings. PWM is the base RPM. if I set it higher I get faster level lap times, lower slower. MIN is the slowest it will go if it is backing off and max is as fast as it will go if a boost is called for. Sensitivity is how fast that will happen. Higher numbers are faster. I am guessing that the absolute RPM related to the settings depends on the ESC and motor.
How am I doing so far?
I have been told that the boost is faster and stronger with a 6s vs a 5s. I have 35% remaining on the 5s on a calm day. Should be OK.
Sorry to be such a pain - Ken
-
Not a pain at all. Sounds like you are on the right track.
Since "boost" is controlled by Sensitivity, Max and Min, you can dial up what you want with 5S or 6S. On that timer, the Max and Min will move with the base rpm changes to keep the same delta. You can still move Max and Min to suit your needs.
"PWM is the base RPM." RPM settings as seen on the Jeti box have a timer "RPM" number and a pulse width number.
http://www.metaenergia.com.br/wa_files/CL_20Timer_20v_6_20EN.pdf
-
Not a pain at all. Sounds like you are on the right track.
Since "boost" is controlled by Sensitivity, Max and Min, you can dial up what you want with 5S or 6S. On that timer, the Max and Min will move with the base rpm changes to keep the same delta. You can still move Max and Min to suit your needs.
"PWM is the base RPM." RPM settings as seen on the Jeti box have a timer "RPM" number and a pulse width number.
http://www.metaenergia.com.br/wa_files/CL_20Timer_20v_6_20EN.pdf
Fred: A question on the ESC. I went out today to test the new settings. I accidently plugged the ESC into the landing gear position. After much head scratching and blaming it on the cat I got things connected correctly. I powered down then powered up in the proper sequence. It acted normal and powered up right on que but it only gave me about 25% power. It acted exactly as it would if you had set it for a 6s and put in 4s battery except it is set to autodetect. Packed up and limped home (knee still killing me). Back in the shop I plugged in the battery and tried it one more time. Full power. Now I am confused and a little concerned. There are 6 different ways you can plug the ESC into the timer, 5 are wrong and I have done all 5 at least once with no damage. What I am wondering is what kind of memory is in the esc/timer and did turning them off until the capacitors drained maybe fix the problem. I checked it again in about an hour and all was well. Really disappointing, weather was 50 with a 3mph wind coming out of the sun AND I COULDN'T GET OFF THE GROUND!
-
I like to make it easy to plug and unplug the ESC to the timer, and to do it correctly. I use a 4 or 6" extension between the timer and ESC. Similarly, I have an extension from the timer to use to plug into the Jeti Box. I can match colors easily plugging to the extension, but it is not always to plug into the timer once it is installed.
You can also plug power into the Jeti box from a 4 cell NiXX pack (not over 5.5v) and not need the LiPo pack. Leave an extension from the Jeti Box to the 4 cell pack plugged into the box.
These additions make programming and ESC checks easy. See photo.
I'm not sure about the diodes and memory, but that may be correct, needs to be completely "off" to reboot.
-
Finally got to fly again and start working on trim. Fred was right. Nose Up and G-Force confuse things and don't work well till the plane is trimmed. Finally got the trim into the "flyable" box. Got the elevator about right. It was floating real bad inverted. Got the speed down to 5.2. Now I have to figure out leadout position. It is pretty loose over 45. Under 45 it is rock solid. Moving the leadouts back did not help. Next trip I will try moving forward. I am tempted to turn on G_force but I have not exhausted normal trim. Moved the battery 1/2" forward and the hunting stopped. So now it is pretty much getting handle time to get used to logarythmic. I have installed a Jetti port on the side so that I don't have to disconnect anything or open hatches. Really nice to not have to find screws in the grass!
Ken
One thing that will go away with all the plastics we are courting. The total relaxation and peace of mind that you get carving a nose block.
-
Three more flights today. Still long way to go on trim. Very loose above 45. Had to abort two OH8's. Plane doesn't want to fly slow. Bumped up the RPM to give me a 5.1. Much better but still verry loose on the RWO and OH8. Turned on G-Force which really made a difference. The kick in at the intersection of the V8 and the extra power through the top of the hourglass was refreshing. It also uncovered the real problem in the OH8. Wings not level and not enough tip weight. Plane is really touchy with the logarythmic so I slowed down the elevator for next trip. It also is very unforgiving of missing the wind. This is the 4th in the series. The other three were very forgiving but this one gets all bent out of shape if I am off as little as 25 degrees.
Next time out Iam going to try using Nose Up instead of G-Force. I think that may help the RWO. She turns with the best of them. So much so that I am going to have to retrain my brain before summer. When you hold the back leg of the hourglass till you see your pilot figure reaching for the ejection handle and still pull out at 8', you gotta get this one trimmed.
I gave her 6 more flights to get her Sh** together before I take it off of my Avatar. She said she would try harder.
Ken
-
Something has been bothering me since Tuesday's session. The only thing I did to the plane since the last session was to seal the flaps. Now everything I have learned since coming back says seal the flaps. Trim wise, it was already "in the box" of being able to fly a respectable pattern. All of my other planes improved when I sealed the flaps, this one went to Sh**. With any flap movement I got erratic movement. Rounds began tightening on their own, corners wouldn't lock half of the time, it went rogue on me any time I missed the wind by even a smidge, and it was so sensitive that I had to buy a hunting license to keep from getting arrested. I am starting to think that sealing may not be a universal plus. On all of my other planes sealing smoothed things out and tightened corners a bit, that was all. Is there perhaps an airfoil / flap combination that sealing hurts?
Ken
-
Check the gaps of the hinge lines on the planes. There has to be a difference. D>K
-
Maybe your model is not straight, and sealing the hinge lines made it more sensitive, which amplifies the faults? L
-
Maybe your model is not straight, and sealing the hinge lines made it more sensitive, which amplifies the faults? L
I think you have nailed it. It IS NOT Straight. When I was sheeting the wing a piece of balsa got under the front center jig support and I didn't notice it till the wing was done. I have the equivalent of washout in the tips and the "warp" is in the LE which leaves you with the choice between "trim and fly" it as best you can and leaving it under your Wife's car tire so you can blame her for all the time you are going to have to spend building a new one. My wife doesn't drive so I am stuck.
Without the sealing it flew well enough to be usable in local competition for Classic and Profile and until I can get back in the practice rhythm, my PA expectations will be to pretty much keep some out-of-town guy from placing last!
Trim was coming along fine. After sealing it felt like it was the Cake from McArthur Park. We will see, next outing will be sans sealing.
Ken
-
... leaves you with the choice between "trim and fly" it as best you can and leaving it under your Wife's car tire so you can blame her for all the time you are going to have to spend building a new one. My wife doesn't drive so I am stuck.
Ken
Loan the airplane to Ted. Shareen has had practice to drive over a model. She learned how to do it in one try. (It was a new, very light, nice Nobler.)
Keith
-
Ken
Tuff dealing with a crooked bird! However before you invoke Keith's suggestion may I suggest a couple things. First off, I encountered the "washout problem on a recent OTS. Was perplexing and hard to discover but in my case was easy to fix. Mine was an open bay wing that twisted when I covered it. I was able to fairly easily twist it back and retighten the 'cote.
I you did NOT use sheer webs then you might be able to grab it, twist the heck out of it and tighten the covering; 1/16" is not much twist to overcome. However if you have sheer webs then you will probably need to perform surgery. Remove the covering from the bottom, pluck out all the sheer webs, then retwist the wing and reinstall the webs. Re-cover in plain white - then fly. If it works then finish restoring the trim colors. If not then there is always Keith's suggestion!
-
Ken
Tuff dealing with a crooked bird! However before you invoke Keith's suggestion may I suggest a couple things. First off, I encountered the "washout problem on a recent OTS. Was perplexing and hard to discover but in my case was easy to fix. Mine was an open bay wing that twisted when I covered it. I was able to fairly easily twist it back and retighten the 'cote.
I you did NOT use sheer webs then you might be able to grab it, twist the heck out of it and tighten the covering; 1/16" is not much twist to overcome. However, if you have sheer webs then you will probably need to perform surgery. Remove the covering from the bottom, pluck out all the sheer webs, then retwist the wing and reinstall the webs. Re-cover in plain white - then fly. If it works then finish restoring the trim colors. If not, then there is always Keith's suggestion!
Regrettably, the twist is in an improperly sheeted "D" tube. Picture this, you have a rod jig with 3 supports. each end and the middle. You go to start the bottom sheeting (the top is already on) and when you lay the wing on the jig, one LE is up. No biggie, until both sides are sheeted this sort of thing happens, so you pull it down and lock the rods straight (so you think). What you didn't see was some balsa that got under the front of the center support. Now the center of the wing is a full 1/4" higher than the tips at the LE, perfectly straight at the TE. Now your hero sheets the top and locks in the bowed LE.
My laser level just arrived, and I discovered another treat. I had aligned the stab to the crooked wing. It has about 1-2 degrees positive (LE higher than TE) incidence. No wonder it acts like it is being flown by Davy Crockett. I have two choices here. E-Xacto #11 and, maybe this will work, maybe not, it is electric running tractor(normal) direction. What if I run it pusher (abnormal)? Isn't that the right incidence for a pusher?
Lesson #1 - DO NOT try to build a full size stunter at your work desk. Lesson#2 - buy some friggen alignment tools.
This is starting to become the final exam you take after taking Paul Walker's trim chart class.
Ken
-
So I bought some friggen alignment tools. I have always thought that incidence gages were not worth the price. Then there was this warp and a used Robarts on EBay at a decent price and "Buy Me Now". So, I bought it then and........another of my core beliefs got dashed on the rocks of reality. in 15 minutes of checking I found out that not only was all of the plane except one part 100% straight but I could have used that gauge to prevent it from ever getting covered with the warp. The outboard wing had a twist that started at mid wing and had the outboard LE up 2 degrees. No wonder it wanted to float up into the wind. The price for my misadventure was to lay her out upside down blocked up and weighted down. Opened up three bays on the bottom where the warp started and wet down the insides with a spray bottle. I had never considered how useful a 5lb table vise with a built-in wing tip clamp could be. Weighted her down till the warp was gone, reshrunk the monokote then used the heat gun to dry out the balsa somewhat. Hot wet balsa bends better than it does cold and dry. Left it overnight with the weight attached and this morning - WARP GONE.
Downside - It is back to page 1 of the trim chart. I have never been so happy to have removable adjustable flaps!
Ken
-
Ken, your problems are the reason I went to foam wings. Although anything can be screwed up, a foam wing is much easier and faster for me to build and have it straight. Although heavier, I can live with that.
I also use the Robart incidence meters. But, I wonder how accurately they are made. I suppose they are good enough but certainly not the precision-machined product for perfect alignment. Another thing I wonder about is those angled pieces that are clamped to the leading edge and trailing edge. If you are not very careful in shaping those edges, can the plastic angle can be attached at an incorrect angle/position and affect the reading?
Getting the foam wing halves joined with equal incidence in the panels is critical and I use the incidence meters for that. If anyone has a product/procedure different than the Robart incidence meter I would like to hear of it.
-
I also use the Robart incidence meters. But, I wonder how accurately they are made.
I checked mine with a laser level when it came and it was dead on. The absolute readings are not as important as the relative readings.
ken
-
Now this is a first for me. Others claim to have it happen, but I will bet most of them are skirting the truth. With all of the manipulating, warp removal and putting things back together it was dead on wings level upright and inverted on the 1st flight. So why do I need adjustable flaps if I don't need to adjust them?
2nd flight I put her through her paces. Light overhead and a little tighter on the outsides than insides. A half a turn on the elevator ball link and moved the leadouts fwd 1/8". Finally, her first real pattern. I was still skeptical that the wings were level so I videoed the flight and they were straight edge level. Corners and locking fabulous. Every flaw in the pattern, and there were a bunch could be directly attributed to the pilot.
This is going to be a fun plane to learn the ins and outs of logarithmic flaps and an active timer at the same time. It flies enough like a PA to be competitive but so far trimming it is like herding cats. I keep wishing for a guide to making the transition, but it never comes.
Ken
-
First flight in steady wind. Not too much, about 8. Learned a bit about "Nose Up". It is powerful, maybe too powerful. The handle pressure on the squares was excessive. I am used to the plane slowing down which made it easier to turn the following corners. With Nose Up it sprints to the 2nd corner. I was at 60 degrees before the autopilot wanted to turn and going really fast. If I dial it back to make the squares easier, then I lose the gains on the RWO and Hourglass. G-Force is working nicely. The extra boost in the OH8 and balancing the level flight in the wind is nice.
My goal today was to test tighter corners and see how the plane responded. It responded well to about 12'. The plane will go tighter but I will need to slow it down to do it. With the logarithmic I don't lose as much speed in the corner. I really need to let someone familiar with the Fiorotti timer fly this beast and tell me what it needs, but I am the only one within a couple hundred miles. So many places to trim, so little time. Brave new world!
Had another thrill. Seems that those foam tires will go flat. When they do they bulge a bit at the corners of the flat. That bump started rubbing on the top of the wheel pants. Makes really cool spot landings!
Ken
-
It has been a while since I have been able to fly. I was able to get this years 3rd through 6th flights this morning. :o
Light but choppy 10mph wind. The change from how the plane flew in March was astounding. I discovered that my timer setting for the accelerometer pad position was backwards, so I fixed that and repositioned it directly under the bellcrank. Upon Fred's recommendations I set all of my settings to 8 with an 80 delta. Flew it and was amazed how much better it responded. It needed some tweaking overhead and it lagged just a bit, especially on braking. Flew it one more time to make sure it needed change, it did. Upped sensitivity to 12 and G-Force to 10 and we be done. She was adequately trimmed (as if they are ever fully trimmed) both power and plane. I had been hesitant to see what she was capable of and truly test the logarithmic till I had the power trim right, so I went for it on the third flight. I was able to tighten the corners to what I think is around 10' without any "banging" and maintain that through the entire sq8. 5.4 both ways on 63', plenty of time for an old fart to work with. I have really needed that "fix". 3 flights in 5 months is not the road to climbing the mountain. It is more like backing up in a parking lot in the foothills. But at least I am out of the parking place!
It is refreshing to see what a 60's design is capable of with today's technology.
Ken
-
Ken:
You really did a beautiful job on your build. It looks great!
-
In my last post I thought I had the timer working to my satisfaction and it was truly flying well so now, I feel compelled to pass on a learning experience. The accelerator sensor is a pad that attaches to the plane flat somewhere. Little is said in the instructions about orientation, and it is easy to read into the instructions that it is assumed that you are mounting it on the inside of a fuselage on the floor. However, on a profile it goes on the bottom of the wing, and it is upside down. There is a setting for this in the timer, but it is easy to misunderstand what you are setting and how to set it since it is done differently from all of the other settings. Until yesterday, I had the setting backwards. Most of the timer functions still worked but they were very muted. Still, I had the plane flying well, it just didn't seem to have the drive I expected from the settings I was using. Others made the same comment. So, on the last flight I had the orientation setting right but I still had the exaggerated boost settings. First thing I noticed was that I could hear the rpm shift in level flight as I went from upwind to downwind. Never did that before! Cool. Ok, RWO time. BadAss motors are all too quiet, so I am sure those watching clearly heard the "WTF was that" as the plane literally blasted off like it had afterburners. I aborted and just flew it around noting where it kicked in and where it braked to get a feel where to set things. I decided to treat it as a new setup and reset the timer to default settings. Two trim flights today to reset sensitivity, Nose Up and G-Force. What a difference it makes when the boost/brake happens when it is supposed to. So why am I telling you how dumb I am? Maybe someone getting their first Fiorotti timer will not make the same mistake and conclude that the timer is a bust. Don't let anybody tell you that electric is less trouble than IC. It is full of ways to screw up. But, once you get it figured out, it is worth it.
As for the logarithmic, now I am beginning to appreciate it. At first, I had a rather "so what is this all about" since I didn't really see any difference. It is very subtle and doesn't really show till you learn how to feel it. Today I was able to feel it and finally see the difference. I didn't *need* it to turn a tight corner. I didn't *need* it to turn a quality corner but having it lets me turn a tight quality corner. Not too many people use them so it is difficult to get a discussion going where I can learn from others.
Ken
-
Thanks for sharing. We all learn from each other. Glad to hear that it is working well.
-
Try Excaliber II. H^^
Excaliber II was determined to be NOT Classic legal, Doc. The Tom Warden designed provile (sic) is probably a better flying plane and more suitably sized for Ken's OS .46LA. ;) ;) ;) Steve
-
Excaliber II was determined to be NOT Classic legal, Doc. The Tom Warden designed provile (sic) is probably a better flying plane and more suitably sized for Ken's OS .46LA. ;) ;) ;) Steve
Interesting, I built the second profile version of the Sandpiper in 2018 but I did not follow the original so it was not Classic Legal. Flew nearly as well as this one does and it was powered by an OS .46LA. Lost in the fire.
ken
-
Well, this thread started in November 2020 and today the subject of the thread finally lost her virginity at the Ash Southwesterns. Entered in all three classes but only got to fly PA. She performed beautifully, me-not so much but I will catch up to her ability soon.
Ken
-
Is this cubicle in your house or at work? ???
-
Is this cubicle in your house or at work? ???
Work :-X
I have a better place now, still in the office but I have a 6 x 3 worktable that is just fine for building.
-
After all the hype and claims to success on other threads, I added the "Gurney" things to my elevators to try and put a halt to the rampant hunting. Since I had no idea what I was doing, I just monokoted two pieces of 1/4 x 1/16 and CA'd them to the elevator TE, grabbed a couple of batteries and headed to the field. I knew when the plane was 2' off the ground at half circle on the takeoff that they were doing something. 10 laps later it was still grooving. Success! Rolled her over onto her back and got 10 laps of rock steady inverted. Hunting was GONE! Did some corners and wow, tighter and the best locking I have had since the 80's. Packed up and grinned all the way back to the office.
Today I got in two full patterns. The corners are at least 2' tighter with the same handle movement and the locking and tracking in the flats is greatly improved. These do-dads work. What I don't know, is if I simply lucked into the right combination for this plane on the first try or do all kinds of shapes have the same effect. They seem to be in all sorts of sizes and shapes in the pix I have seen. I really want to understand the physics.
Ken
-
Ken,
Is the trailing edge on your elevator tapered to a sharp point?
-
Ken,
Is the trailing edge on your elevator tapered to a sharp point?
No. They are 1/8" thick at the TE with an 1/8" carbon fiber cap. The elevators were tapered from 1/2" at the LE to 1/8" at the TE. They are imbedded into the stab and not sealed.
Ken
-
No. They are 1/8" thick at the TE with an 1/8" carbon fiber cap. The elevators were tapered from 1/2" at the LE to 1/8" at the TE. They are imbedded into the stab and not sealed.
Ken
They only stick up 1/16" top and bottom? Just curious because when I went to a 2 bade on my plane it developed a slight hunt. If this might fix it I will try it.
-
They only stick up 1/16" top and bottom? Just curious because when I went to a 2 bade on my plane it developed a slight hunt. If this might fix it I will try it.
Close. I just measured. I sliced the strip by eyeball then centered it. It was 5/16 wide and 3/32 sticking up on each side. They go the full length of the elevator. Keep in mind that Trifecta is twin tail so I am already blocking the vortex. That may or may not have anything to do with anything but it does corner much tighter with the same handle effort.
I know you are not electric but one surprise was the battery draw did not go up.
Ken
-
Today was the test of the Gurney tabs in full pattern mode and as Bob stated, "they are not coming off". The overall control difference was worth it alone. Corners about 2' tighter with the same effort and just as smooth. It may have been wishful thinking, but I also felt that the handle pressure on corners was less. Tracking in all maneuvers was better, noticeably in the RWO and hourglass. I tried something in my inverted flight to see if there was any improvement at different altitudes. Interestingly at 2' and 6' the plane was rock steady but at 5' it felt like it wanted to wander a bit. We have a domed circle and "rulebook" 5' here is about 6 1/2' above ground. I have been trying to find the right altitude for level that doesn't look too high. Another surprise was how easy it was to hold the takeoff down.
One thing that has sparked my curiosity. I felt a larger improvement in corners than I expected. Could any of that be the logarithmic since it produces a wider flap/elevator ratio?
Crist Rigotti tried them today. His comment upon landing was the same. "They stay on". He is experimenting with width. I will leave it up to him to report on that if he so desires.
Ken
-
One thing that has sparked my curiosity. I felt a larger improvement in corners than I expected. Could any of that be the logarithmic since it produces a wider flap/elevator ratio?
In my experience with them, I don’t think so. With the balsa wedges and the layers of tape versions I’ve tried, the corners have been better and easier. That was the biggest difference in them that I felt with them on, cornering could be harder and still come out dead flat without needing excessive control force…just more consistent
-
Isn’t Joe Gilbert whupping a** with a Ringmaster? That may be the ultimate trifecta. A little carbon here, a modern engine there, what’s not to like?
You have got that right, Larry. I've watched and judged Joe several times. He used a very well-built Ringmaster. Without measuring, it looks well within anything that might have been done in the 50's and 60's.
Most of his presentation was well-practiced PRESENTATION of the maneuvers. He always gave the judges a very good look at the maneuver and never had the plane give even a hint of falling out of position. He also was very good and making slight changes to maneuvers to position them better and make them look crisper and cleaner when necessary. I've never seen a profile flyer do a better job, anywhere.
Phil C
-
Well, I found out today why I should not fly when the wind is directly into the sun. Flew right through it on a practice RWO and pulled out 5'1" low. Never saw the plane hit. Not the way I wanted to start the year. Guess it is time for the cataract surgery.
Ken
-
Ouch!
-
Well, live and learn. Where were your sun glasses? D>K
-
Oh sorry Ken..keeps you building. Brings up a recent bad memory. Still have time to build a new one before the season starts.
Dave
-
Sorry to see that you lost such a nice plane. I guess you can console yourself with "better to go out in glory than to rot away sitting in an attic/basement". I guess...
-
Well, live and learn. Where were your sun glasses? D>K
I was wearing them. Really cool wrap arounds. They don't help much when I look directly at the sun. This one goes into the "@#$% happens" category. After I get over how stupid I was to fly the RWO into the sun I will fix the plane and go do something equally as stupid. It will fly again. Wing was undamaged and all of the power train survived. I am going to drop the Classic part of Trifecta and put a normal rudder and stab tip plates instead of the twins.
Ken
Ken
-
Well I gave in and replaced the twin rudders. Actually I just covered the crushed frames with 1/32. It is almost recovered. Add a little trim and back to the RWO rehab sessions.
Found some tail art.
-
Proof of life. Actually flies better after the repairs. Certainly looks better! Going to redo the landing gear. What is on there now sounds like a shopping basket full of beer cans being pushed over a washboard. %^@
Ken
-
Proof of life. Actually flies better after the repairs. Certainly looks better! Going to redo the landing gear. What is on there now sounds like a shopping basket full of beer cans being pushed over a washboard. %^@
Ken
Ain't that the truth!
-
Way. To. Go. I HATE repairing airplanes, you did great.
Going to redo the landing gear. What is on there now sounds like a shopping basket full of beer cans being pushed over a washboard. %^@
Ken
Aluminum gear? I wonder if its possible to mount it on servo grommets? I also really wonder if that would help???
-
Way. To. Go. I HATE repairing airplanes, you did great.
Aluminum gear? I wonder if its possible to mount it on servo grommets? I also really wonder if that would help???
Wheels made so much noise I had to do something. Ball Bearings. Overkill - Absolutely but what is a hobby for anyway!
Ken
-
Wheels made so much noise I had to do something. Ball Bearings. Overkill - Absolutely but what is a hobby for anyway!
Ken
Overkill? No such thing. Moderation is for Monks, anything worth doing is worth OVERdoing!