Trimming 3 Different Planes?

[Kafin Noe’man]

Hi

I currently fly 3 different planes with 3 different engines & props combination. Furthermore, after implementing the Paul Walker’s trimming chart, I think I have found the one plane that can be my reference. So, if I want to trim all of them into my liking, is having the same lap times for all of them very crucial? Or is it the responsiveness of the planes that has to be the same so I can give the same input forces on every plane?


Additional info:
Vector
Engine: Enya 35XS
Prop: APC 10.5x4.5
Lines: 0.015x60 ft
Lap time Average: 5.4 sec

Banshee
Engine: OS LA 25
Prop: JXF 10x6
Lines: 0.015x60 ft
Lap time Average: 5.0 sec

Cardinal
Engine: ENYA SS40
Prop: Master Airscrew 10x4
Lines: 0.015x60 ft
Lap time Average: 5.8 sec

Looking forward to hearing more from you.
Thank you so much!


Best,
Kafin


EDIT: I’ve added the lines length to the details.

[Ken Culbertson]

In my experience, it is better to try and match performance vs lap time.  The Vector will outperform the other two so it should be the standard.  Every plane/motor combination has a speed that it wants to fly.  Once you figure out that speed you have a lap time.  It should be different for all of the planes.  Focus on learning to fly the plane by giving it whatever control it wants to follow the path of the maneuver.  If you have to think about how much control to input, it is too late.  Let your muscle memory develop and let it do that for you.  Then, it won't matter what plane you are flying.

Ken

[Brett Buck]

Hi

I currently fly 3 different planes with 3 different engines & props combination. Furthermore, after implementing the Paul Walker’s trimming chart, I think I have found the one plane that can be my reference. So, if I want to trim all of them into my liking, is having the same lap times for all of them very crucial? Or is it the responsiveness of the planes that has to be the same so I can give the same input forces on every plane?


Additional info:
Vector
Engine: Enya 35XS
Prop: APC 10.5x4.5
Lap time Average: 5.4 sec

Banshee
Engine: OS LA 25
Prop: JXF 10x6
Lap time Average: 5.0 sec

Cardinal
Engine: ENYA SS40
Prop: Master Airscrew 10x4
Lap time Average: 5.8 sec

    I think you goal is unrealistic. Those airplanes fly wildly differently and there is nothing you can do with the Cardinal to make it a Vector 40. The Vector 40 is far and away the most capable design.

     I am also concerned about some of your details. There's no way in the world you are going to have much luck with the 5.8 second laps on the Cardinal (presumably the Cardinal 40 profile). Even if you make the highly recommended flap reduction mod, that's not going to want to go much slower than maybe 5.2-5.3 without lots of problems in any sort of wind. Enyas are usually pretty weak for their displacement, you might need a 10-5, 10-6, 11-5, or 11-6. I am also curious what line length you are running.

    The other one that stands out is the Banshee with the 25LA. Presuming it is stock, it will run with a 10-6, but to get any sigificant performance out if it, you need to rev it up a lot more than you would with a 10-6, I recommend a 9-4 narrow-blade prop, like an APC 9-4, or a similar 10-4. Slogging around at 8500 rpm it is no better than a Fox 35 (which is pretty dismal) .

     Brett

[Kafin Noe’man]

The Vector will outperform the other two so it should be the standard.

Thank you for the inputs Ken. And yes, the Vector is definitely my reference. It really flies great and it really gives me the idea of how a good plane should fly.

[Kafin Noe’man]

    I think you goal is unrealistic. Those airplanes fly wildly differently and there is nothing you can do with the Cardinal to make it a Vector 40. The Vector 40 is far and away the most capable design.

I see. Yep, the Vector 40 is my reference here. It can give me the idea when trimming the other planes.
The ENYA on this Vector is still sounded 4-2-4 while as far as I know ENYA is better when set wet-2. So, I might try that setting and see the difference.

     I am also concerned about some of your details. There's no way in the world you are going to have much luck with the 5.8 second laps on the Cardinal (presumably the Cardinal 40 profile). Even if you make the highly recommended flap reduction mod, that's not going to want to go much slower than maybe 5.2-5.3 without lots of problems in any sort of wind. Enyas are usually pretty weak for their displacement, you might need a 10-5, 10-6, 11-5, or 11-6. I am also curious what line length you are running.

Yes, it’s the data from my maiden flight and haven’t done any flying (Cardinal) since then. I also feel that 5.8 is too slow. During my maiden flight, the engine ran way too rich so I think I’m gonna try to lean it out a bit first and see the difference. Luckily today is flying day here, so I might go test it and bring some more prop sizes for experiment.

    The other one that stands out is the Banshee with the 25LA. Presuming it is stock, it will run with a 10-6, but to get any sigificant performance out if it, you need to rev it up a lot more than you would with a 10-6, I recommend a 9-4 narrow-blade prop, like an APC 9-4, or a similar 10-4. Slogging around at 8500 rpm it is no better than a Fox 35 (which is pretty dismal) .

Yep, since the lap time average is also too fast and sagging going up, I’ve changed the prop into 10x4 and will also try 10x5 today. So, hopefully this will make it to fly better. I once tried putting a 9x5 prop, but I didn’t feel it was giving me any pull on the ground, so I went back with the 10x6 that day.


Thank you so much!


Best,
Kafin

[Leonard Bourel]

Hi Kafine I agree totally with Brett on what to do with your Cardinal 62foot lines from center of model to center of handle always worked well on mine I like a 5.2-5.4 lap My combination was 11x5 prop with an la 46 I ran this plane for 15 years and gave it away this past year with all original equipment It has well over 1000 flts and still going As Brett says trim those flaps down and it will really fly better

[Dan McEntee]

   One specification you do not list is line length.  Line length is one of your tuning tools to get the best feel for an airplane and a lap speed that you find comfortable. I find my best flying any airplane I have will be within 5.1 to 5.4 seconds depending on the model. A lap time of 5.1 seconds on a Ringmaster fling on 59 foot lines is different that 5.2 seconds on a ;larger model flying on 65 foot lines. You have to take each model individually. Fly it and trim it until it flies the pattern to your satisfaction, and note all the parameters. I have a set of lines and a handle  for each airplane I have that I fly with any regularity, so once I get happy with a model, that never changes, and it is marked for that airplane. Then move to the next one and work along the same lines. Then move onto the third. I generally fly one or two models for the most part at any time I go to sport fly, generally models I don't fly in contests. If I feel the need for a change, I'm pick another model that may need some attention in the trim area, and fly that for a while. Lately I have been working on two Nobler ARFs that have been hanging in my garage for many years, and got them out and active. I also have several ringmasters and like to fly the Old Time Stunt pattern with those also. I don't switch back and forth during a session. I'll fly one until I think I have had enough, and then maybe fly the other. The second model is really a spare just to make sure I have something to fly, incase I have a problem with the model I intended to fly first. I suggest that you do something similar. Since you think the Vector is your base line or best model, fly that for 3 or 4 flights, then put it away. Now fly the Cardinal, and work on getting that one to fly as acceptably as you have the Vector. You might never get it to fly exactly the same but you can get it pretty good. Work with prop, fuel, and line length to get the lap time that is best for you  for THAT model. It may take several session, and a thing to remember is to know when to quit and take models home in one piece. The goal is to get each model flying consistently. That is how you improve at flying the pattern. You are not doing do badly with where you are and how you have to fly, and I think you are making some decent progress. Another thing to remember is that WE ALL HERE have been where you are!! We all started out as beginners and we all made the mistakes you have made and will make in the future, but you have persevered with your efforts and are realizing some success. And there is more to come!
  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

[Kafin Noe’man]

Ah, I see I forgot to include the line length into the additional info above, all of the three planes is flying with 0.015 60 ft lines.

[redout]

    I think you goal is unrealistic. Those airplanes fly wildly differently and there is nothing you can do with the Cardinal to make it a Vector 40. The Vector 40 is far and away the most capable design.


     Brett

I'm still learning what makes a good aerobatics plane.

Can I ask what design features make the Vector 40 so good and more capable than the Cardinal ?

I only have some basic specs. off Brodak's web-site :

Cardinal : Wingspan 54 ", Length 40.8 ", Wing area 580 sq."

Vector 40 :              50.5",           42.25",               536 sq."

[Ken Culbertson]

Kafin:

The Cardinal can be made to fly well enough to be a very good learning plane.  If you trim the flaps and stiffen the rear fuselage somewhat it is not going to bite you as much.  Most of the problems are not in being able to perform all of the pattern maneuvers, it will be in the quality, and you have to survive the "how to" before the "how well" really matters.  Stock, your Banshee is your #2 but with the mods, the Cardinal is a really good kit profile and will get you through the pattern learning curve much quicker.

Ken

PS to redout:

Other's may have more reasons but two that are paramount (I have had all three of these planes).

#1 it is full fuselage.  The difference in how a plane corners, and comes out of corners, is greatly affected by the stiffness of the fuselage.
#2 it has a larger stab and longer tail movement.  Not as much as some today but still better.

Overall it is an example of a design where everything just fits.  Airfoil, thrust line, fuselage shape all complement each other.  It is one of the easiest to fly planes from that era I have personally flown.

[EricV]

I will only add this to the already excellent advice you have been given... no, you dont want all 3 running the same lap time as each other... BUT... you DO want to trim them all to their ideal lap time and keep them each at their own lap time from then on out since trim and performance is speed sensitive. You can't just decide to fly slower one day and think that flying with a big bow in your lines doesnt effect trim or lift, then fly faster another day and wonder why your throwing the wing in hard corners, etc.

Report back, that's how we armchair quarterbacks get paid. 
EricV

[Dennis Toth]

On the Cardinal one thing you can if you don't want to cut the flaps is to slow them down by moving the bellcrank to flap rod connection up on the flap horn. Leave the flap to elevator where it is so you still get the needed elevator throw but the flaps will move less for the same bellcrank movement. It seems the Cardinal has a bit shorter tail moment so if the ships is reasonable weight you can reduce the flap to elevator throw and it will turn a little quicker. Many of the older ships benefit from this arrangement because of the short tail moments.

Best,   DennisT

[Dave_Trible]

Just IMHO...if your goal is stunt training I'd suggest you pick one good ship and stick with it at least until it's not flyable.   All these airplanes and speeds will feel so different you will find it hard to develop a feel or muscle memory to be able to concentrate on learning the maneuvers,  thereby hindering your progress.  Ideally one would have multiple 'like' airplanes that all run and handle about the same.  I'm training someone now and we are able to keep two Banshees and a Magician in flyable service so he's never without the tools to learn.  They all fly about the same and at the same relative speed.

Dave

[Steve Helmick]

Seeing that all three are being flown on .015's at 60' long, I'm afraid that the same lines and handle are used on all three models. If you do nothing else, you MUST have a dedicated set of lines AND handle for each model. Getting NEUTRAL set exactly right is a huge help. Adjusting the line spacing to suit each model is also a BIG deal.

I'm not a fan of checking lap times. It's either fast enough or it's too fast/slow. Checking your launch rpm is the key. That HAS to be done with the engine warmed up. We sometimes see guys start their engine, set the needle immediately, and head to the handle. Then, just as they arrive at the handle, the engine slows because it got richer due to warming up. Don't be that guy!  Steve

[Ken Culbertson]

Seeing that all three are being flown on .015's at 60' long, I'm afraid that the same lines and handle are used on all three models. If you do nothing else, you MUST have a dedicated set of lines AND handle for each model. Getting NEUTRAL set exactly right is a huge help. Adjusting the line spacing to suit each model is also a BIG deal.

I'm not a fan of checking lap times. It's either fast enough or it's too fast/slow. Checking your launch rpm is the key. That HAS to be done with the engine warmed up. We sometimes see guys start their engine, set the needle immediately, and head to the handle. Then, just as they arrive at the handle, the engine slows because it got richer due to warming up. Don't be that guy!  Steve

Most of the IC guys here preheat their engines with a 10-15 second run before even going onto the circle.  Then after starting they don't even bother with the TAC for about 5-10 seconds.  It is a bit different at a contest when you are on the clock but still, not letting the engine warm up is the cause of about half of the bad needle settings.  You are lucky, I didn't learn this till I was well into competing with lots of bad runs.  Most of us "old timers" had to learn everything on our own.

Ken

[Steve Helmick]

Most of the IC guys here preheat their engines with a 10-15 second run before even going onto the circle.  Then after starting they don't even bother with the TAC for about 5-10 seconds.  It is a bit different at a contest when you are on the clock but still, not letting the engine warm up is the cause of about half of the bad needle settings.  You are lucky, I didn't learn this till I was well into competing with lots of bad runs.  Most of us "old timers" had to learn everything on our own.

Ken

I paid attention to Dirty Dan Rutherford's pre-launch drill. I think it's real important to do the exact same thing, every flight. Warm it up, check and adjust the NV with the tach if required, and then head out to the handle. Not sure about everywhere, but here if you fly at 10am and your next round official is at 2pm, usually the NV needs adjusting pretty significantly. Thankfully, we have 8 minutes and not just 7.  Steve 

[redout]

Kafin:

PS to redout:

Other's may have more reasons but two that are paramount (I have had all three of these planes).

#1 it is full fuselage.  The difference in how a plane corners, and comes out of corners, is greatly affected by the stiffness of the fuselage.
#2 it has a larger stab and longer tail movement.  Not as much as some today but still better.

Overall it is an example of a design where everything just fits.  Airfoil, thrust line, fuselage shape all complement each other.  It is one of the easiest to fly planes from that era I have personally flown.

Much appreciated Ken.

I'll start measuring these things ( #1 and # 2 ) on my slowly accumulating fleet and see if I can relate them to how the planes fly.

[Brett Buck]

I'm still learning what makes a good aerobatics plane.

Can I ask what design features make the Vector 40 so good and more capable than the Cardinal ?

   It's a host of things - much better airfoil, much better proportion of flap, better stabilizer/elevator design, full-fuse vice profile. Stunt airplane design is a very complex topic, it still involves a lot of unproven hypotheses and subjective evaluations.

   Another complicating factor is that the "design" is only the idea, and the execution - building, controls setup, powering, trimming - is usually a bigger factor in the results than differences between designs. For the most part, for most of us, has a huge element of luck in stumbling across a good combination of power, trim, and handle setup. That greatly complicates trying to figure out which design is best and only after years and lots of experience can you be certain of your evaluation.

   Power, in particular, is so important that even the tiniest weakness or flaw in your engine run or electric setup could easily swamp any design difference. This used to be a determining factor in winning contests, it still is to some extent, but all the experts are pretty close to getting it right almost all the time now (because competition engines are so much better and vastly more predictable than they used to be), but using vintage or muffled engines - like almost everyone outside competitors does - it is usually a huge factor.

    I suppose that boils down to "take my word for it". I also note that you will get differing opinions, and I am sure that there are people out there lining up to tell you how I am wrong and the Cardinal is the best plane ever.

     Any of the airplanes mentioned will fly pretty good if you get everything else right, but "getting it right" is part of the craft of CL Stunt, and takes years to even understand and has never been completely mastered.

    Brett

     

[Gary Dowler]

I see. Yep, the Vector 40 is my reference here. It can give me the idea when trimming the other planes.
The ENYA on this Vector is still sounded 4-2-4 while as far as I know ENYA is better when set wet-2. So, I might try that setting and see the difference.


Yes, it’s the data from my maiden flight and haven’t done any flying (Cardinal) since then. I also feel that 5.8 is too slow. During my maiden flight, the engine ran way too rich so I think I’m gonna try to lean it out a bit first and see the difference. Luckily today is flying day here, so I might go test it and bring some more prop sizes for experiment.


Yep, since the lap time average is also too fast and sagging going up, I’ve changed the prop into 10x4 and will also try 10x5 today. So, hopefully this will make it to fly better. I once tried putting a 9x5 prop, but I didn’t feel it was giving me any pull on the ground, so I went back with the 10x6 that day.


Thank you so much!


Best,
Kafin

I dont know what you mean when you said the 25FP lacked "pull on the ground" with the 9-5 prop, presumably you mean that it felt as though it lacked thrust?  If so, then I would suggest that you had the needle set wrong.  The 25FP has a lot of power, IF RUN RIGHT.   They MUST rev to produce that power. They are NOT 4-2-4 engines, and will leave you disappointed if you try running them that way.

Brett is the man to listen to regarding the FP's.  Get a 9-4 (Not a 9-5 or 9-6, they need low pitch to rev) APC prop, lean it out on the ground to max RPM, then open the needle just until you detect a drop in RPM and go! This should give you a launch RPM of somewhere around 13,500 RPM or so.  Assuming your plane is trimmed out properly (little or no engine offset, no rudder offset, leadouts in the right place, etc)  the 25FP should pull that plane all over the sky just fine.

Gary

[Air Ministry .]

Did you put the WEIGHTS ?

around 5.0 a lap , particulary if its blowing , is pretty good .

If theyre not wallowing - Dropping out of bottoms on hard turns - you can slow em down .
Sort of test is to Hit Up hard , out of the wingover . But HIGH .

If ' the turn ' is RIGHT , then you lower it. If the exits underground , it tends not to . So get the shapes , once theyre working , then start on the five foot levels  . with a lookout or closed field .

[Brett Buck]

Brett is the man to listen to regarding the FP's.  Get a 9-4 (Not a 9-5 or 9-6, they need low pitch to rev) APC prop, lean it out on the ground to max RPM, then open the needle just until you detect a drop in RPM and go! This should give you a launch RPM of somewhere around 13,500 RPM or so.  Assuming your plane is trimmed out properly (little or no engine offset, no rudder offset, leadouts in the right place, etc)  the 25FP should pull that plane all over the sky just fine.

     I was hedging above only because, after what seems like a million previous situations, that the engine may have been "improved" by various means; that is, improved the point that it won't put out any power and requires something like a 10-6.

    Brett

[redout]

   It's a host of things - much better airfoil, much better proportion of flap, better stabilizer/elevator design, full-fuse vice profile. Stunt airplane design is a very complex topic, it still involves a lot of unproven hypotheses and subjective evaluations.

   Another complicating factor is that the "design" is only the idea, and the execution - building, controls setup, powering, trimming - is usually a bigger factor in the results than differences between designs. For the most part, for most of us, has a huge element of luck in stumbling across a good combination of power, trim, and handle setup. That greatly complicates trying to figure out which design is best and only after years and lots of experience can you be certain of your evaluation.

   Power, in particular, is so important that even the tiniest weakness or flaw in your engine run or electric setup could easily swamp any design difference. This used to be a determining factor in winning contests, it still is to some extent, but all the experts are pretty close to getting it right almost all the time now (because competition engines are so much better and vastly more predictable than they used to be), but using vintage or muffled engines - like almost everyone outside competitors does - it is usually a huge factor.

    I suppose that boils down to "take my word for it". I also note that you will get differing opinions, and I am sure that there are people out there lining up to tell you how I am wrong and the Cardinal is the best plane ever.

     Any of the airplanes mentioned will fly pretty good if you get everything else right, but "getting it right" is part of the craft of CL Stunt, and takes years to even understand and has never been completely mastered.

    Brett

   

Yes I see what you are saying. I have three Banshees and will now focus on those and do my best at setting them up as well as I can.

Afterwards, I can think about choosing a potentially superior design.

I appreciate your reply.

[Dan McEntee]

Yes I see what you are saying. I have three Banshees and will now focus on those and do my best at setting them up as well as I can.

Afterwards, I can think about choosing a potentially superior design.

I appreciate your reply.

   I think you are doing the right thing by sticking with one design while you go through these learning phases. Everyone learns and develops at their own rate, and one thing I have learned after doing this for a long, long time is that the worst thing you could do it jump around from model to model, looking for that one design that will make you fly like an expert. Sometimes a good pilot can make a crappy airplane look pretty good!! A flying buddy of mine took only 3 years to go from the first airplane he built,(that he called me and asked me how to set the needle on a Fox .35 on,) to flying at an expert level and placing 3rd at VSC against some pretty heavy names!!It took me 15 years or more to go from beginner class to the expert class and we both are still learning. You never really stop trimming a model, and you never stop learning and figuring out how to apply the stuff you learned on one model to the next. The Banshee is a very capable model whether it's built stock right ourt of the boc with a Fox.35 or modified like a lot of people have been doing over the years. The main thing is that you get very familiar with the design and building and repairing them get easier. That translates to spending more time flying. As you get one model trimmed out and flying better, you can apply what you learned on one to the rest of them, and pretty soon you have three models that are pretty close to each other. When flying, just fly one model and practice. Racking up time like this is important. If something happens to that airplane or engine, go to the next and keep you your practice routine, and while flying that model you can tweak anything on it that you might have figured out on the first one. Get the other model repaired/serviced/fixed as soon as possible. Make trim changes one at a time, and if after several flights you see that things are worse, put it back to where it was. You have to improve in your flying skills and understanding of what is going on before moving up to a supposedly "better" model will benefit you at all. First goal I think is to learn to do the entire pattern recognizably, and take the model home in one piece after repeated flying sessions. If you can compete and get to contests. moving up through the skill levels and hanging out with, flying with and helping guys at your level is very beneficial. When you improve to where you are ready for the next skill level, THEY will let you know!! Getting into the thick of things at the advanced class level is where a more advanced model will serve you the best. In the mean time, just have fun with the process, that is the best part.
  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

[Air Ministry .]

Yep , most of the better ' pilots ' started out driving something perhaps less than ideal ; Much better learning curve , when youve gotta fight fior your breakfast .

[Kafin Noe’man]

Hi all, thanks for your responses.

One of the most important points I can take from you guys is to trim one plane at a time.
It may take many flights and combinations to finally get your best setup.
What I did lately was focusing on trimming my Banshee, and wrote down all the setup combination and its performance after each changes made.
I also tracked the progress as well as compared the data between flights in order to make more predictable guess on what aspects to improve or change, and slowly I finally could find that sweet spot combo for my Banshee.

And as soon as I have found that sweet spot, I had an engine mounting failure which made the Banshee has to be grounded for a major repair