As best I can measure, everything is 0-0-0. My Robart incidence meters both want to stick a bit on that last half degree or so. Usually lightly tapping the meter will settle it halfway close. The plane flies very well though both inside and outside loops, tracking very good. It’s the square corners and sharp exits of maneuvers that really stand out. Insides really turn very tight and crisp. Outsides just kind of mush through. Second corner of the hourglass seems fine but the outside exit of the first half of the wingover on the very first flight just mushed as did subsequent wingovers. The next corner of the wingover(from inverted to vertical) didn’t seem too bad though.
I may try some down thrust next time out. May also go ahead and cut into it and adjust the pushrod. Weather doesn’t look promising anytime soon though.
There is also the possibility that it is purely a perspective issue on my part. I’ve had several SV11 ARFs, both electric and glow. They all seem to turn better insides than outsides.

Matt

Greetings Matt. It troubles me to hear that you have, as close as you can measure, 0-0-0 incidence. I just checked the original CAD files that were supplied to RSM for the kit. You should be getting 1 to 2 degrees of downthrust as that is what the plane was designed with. Did you use the parts, (formers) supplied with the kit. The thrust line is established with the engine crutch being built as designed. The side view of the nose shows the downthrust but doesn't call it out. It is clear though that the mounting beams are angled down slightly.

Now, that may not be the reason you are experience the turning differences you site.

I think we all, or at least I can say I, try to build my planes to tolerances that are almost impossible to reach given the methods and materials we use. It's a good goal to build and align our model as accurate as possible. I've caught myself trying to maintain + or - .005 tolerances. Even when built using really good jigs, with the way our wood swells and twists throughout its service life, that kind of precision, that tight of a tolerance, is always a moving target.

This truth came to me in a head slap moment when I saw Trians beautiful "Revolutions", molded carbon fiber precision-built model, fly essentially still in trim, after having a new nose and wing replaced after a mishap.
The above information is not given to discourage anyone from building as accurately as they can.
It's also one of the answers why most airplanes built as close to identical to a previous one, usually winds up with different trim solutions. Good pilots have told me that identical designs just aren't identical in real life. I think it's our material and building methods.

All that was to get my feelings for the "Why for" and possibly a good solution, for your problem, unequal turns.

In my opinion, you need to make the elevator pushrod shorter. How much? Well, until the turns are equal. I don't believe the engine thrust line is the dominate force causing the problem. The downthrust is called for in the design, but many model planes have been successfully trimmed for competitions with 0-0-0 incidence. You can give Gordan Delaney, the designer a call. He will likely give you much the same, but possibly better help than I've tried to give you.

I really hope you get it trimmed out. I can only speak to the one I have. It's a sweetheart.

...for sending a picture of his modified Twister to MODEL AVIATION. If you missed it, the pic is in "Focal Point" where they show pics of AMA members models. Very few published of CL and FF models. We really ought to make an effort to change that!  Steve

There's an ANZAC connection to my father. He was stationed on Palawan, P.I., flying B-25's, mostly against Japanese shipping. They got a call from an Aussie commander (British, of course) pleading for air support as they had been trying to take a mountain pass in Borneo. With the three previous attacks being costly in casualties, they finally called someone. Dad's and two other B-25 crews took off to see what they could do, with ol' Dad being the lead plane/mission commander. They flew over at high altitude, so as to appear oblivious to the Japanese defenders, and made their plan.

The plan was rather strange. They feathered their props and idled the engines, gliding down the slope in relative silence, one behind the other. And, they got lucky, because they arrived and attacked as the evening meal was being served. Rifles neatly stacked in the usual conical method. The B-25's straffed and bombed and flew away into the sunset, with no munitions left. Three days later, they got a message from the Aussie troops that they took the pass without opposition. If you know what mountain pass that would have been, I'd be interested. I haven't been able to figure it out. Malaysia now.  Steve

The Australian and New Zealand Army Corps was originally a First World War army corps of the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force. It was formed in Egypt in December 1914, and operated during the Gallipoli campaign.

In December, the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC), under Lieutenant General William Birdwood, was formed to command both the AIF and NZEF components.










totalitarianism .










The first time the Japanese advance was halted was at Kokoda  All the trained troops had gone to the middle east ,
so new recruit farm boys were sent. Which was just as well , as they could shoot .Essentially , at ' the front ' a shoot out , battle off attrition .



https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Japanese-stop-advancing-along-the-Kokoda-trail

Very interesting! I would love to use it for my training flights for the best feedback. Is this software available to purchase somewhere?