News:



  • March 28, 2024, 06:18:07 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.  (Read 18266 times)

Offline Louis Rankin

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 354
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #50 on: June 29, 2006, 11:48:14 AM »
Here is my Avanti minus the engine and gear.  Should be ready to test fly tomorrow or the next day.  Will give a flight report.
Louis Rankin
Somerville Tennessee
AMA 10859

Eric Viglione

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #51 on: June 29, 2006, 01:23:06 PM »
Louis - Nice interpretation of the Avanti! I rarely see people wander from the original Baron paint scheme on the design for some reason. I too am struggling with that question, as I just received my Byron paint stand and will start the finish next week I hope.

I was just going to reverse the colors on the fuse on mine, and make the top block blue and the underscored trim line red, but you really went off the map. COOL!  x: Can't wait to hear how she flies! #^

Eric Viglione

Offline Louis Rankin

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 354
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #52 on: June 29, 2006, 10:42:04 PM »
A couple more pics:
Louis Rankin
Somerville Tennessee
AMA 10859

Offline Bill Little

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12676
  • Second in COMMAND
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #53 on: June 29, 2006, 11:12:33 PM »
Hey Louis,

Did you get my email today??

Great looking plane.  y1

Bill <><
Big Bear <><

Aberdeen, NC

James Hylton Motorsports/NASCAR/ARCA

AMA 95351 (got one of my old numbers back! ;D )

Trying to get by

Offline Louis Rankin

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 354
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #54 on: June 30, 2006, 11:06:43 AM »
Rigged and ready to go:
Louis Rankin
Somerville Tennessee
AMA 10859

Offline Steve Fitton

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2272
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #55 on: June 30, 2006, 11:15:42 AM »
What motor you running Lou?

Steve
Steve

Offline Bill Little

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12676
  • Second in COMMAND
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #56 on: June 30, 2006, 11:54:07 AM »
What motor you running Lou?

Steve

Hey, Stevie,  How's that Patternmaster with the " '96 Baron look" coming along??

Bill <><
Big Bear <><

Aberdeen, NC

James Hylton Motorsports/NASCAR/ARCA

AMA 95351 (got one of my old numbers back! ;D )

Trying to get by

Offline Louis Rankin

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 354
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #57 on: June 30, 2006, 07:45:18 PM »
Steve,

I have installed the DS61LWRE.  I saw Tom fly his at Paducah last year and liked the way it flew.  He is going to bring the DS75LWRE to Paducah this year.  I would like to do a product review on that motor.
Louis Rankin
Somerville Tennessee
AMA 10859

Offline Louis Rankin

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 354
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #58 on: July 02, 2006, 07:59:12 AM »
Initial flight report:

- Flies well, tracks well, and DOES NOT hunt.  Very stable ship.  Landings are smooth and almost imposible to bounch. 

Trim and mod reports:

- Started with 1 ounce tip weight ended up with 3/4 ounce

- DS61LRE seems to like a 12X6 instead of the recommended 13X6.

- Encountered overheating, of course nearly 100 degree day did not help.  I have enlarged the head and muffler cutouts considerably.

- Make sure you clean out your new tank with thinner.  I did not and clogged my filter and venturi with rosen.   Everything cleaned up and ready to go now.

As I said before I did not encounter any hunting problems.  In fact, this is the second best stunt ship I have ever flown with Jim Lynch's GEO XL being the best (of course I admit my limited experience also).

Don't be afraind to build and fly, it is great.  Major recommendation: Make a built up horizontal stab out of 3/8ths stock and sheet with 1/16th.  The solid 1/2 inch does make the model tail heavy.  Mine required 4 ounces of nose weight to balance within CG.

Louis Rankin
Somerville Tennessee
AMA 10859

Offline Steve Fitton

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2272
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #59 on: August 25, 2006, 05:36:11 PM »
As you can see, my Avanti programme hit a bit of a snag last week. '' %^  Trimming was progressing, albeit with more difficulty in yaw then I anticipated, and major issues with power, or lack thereof, that contributed to its demise.  Further data will come when I finish my Avanti 60, as well as data from Louis's and Eric's ships....

Steve
Steve

Offline Jim Morris

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 237
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #60 on: October 20, 2006, 12:25:46 PM »
Hey guys, first time to post,but I thought I might chime in.I have built and flown the Avanti 60. flew pretty good,enough to win some advanced. I just finished an Avanti 54 which was powered by a Stalker 51RE. This plane was flying better than anything I ever had flown , unfortunately it hit a vortex the third time out. Neither one of these planes hunted. On the other hand I have flown planes that were not inline that hunted bad. Im not sure why, and I really dont try to,I just know if it hunts it kindof takes the wind out of my sail so to speek.

Eric Viglione

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #61 on: October 27, 2006, 12:54:26 PM »
Getting there, gotta fly this puppy soon...still got some work to do, but I've got to scratch "the itch" soon!! AP^
Eric V

Eric Viglione

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #62 on: November 26, 2006, 06:13:11 PM »
Flight Report -

I flew the Avanti several times over the holiday weekend. Let me preface my findings with how the bench trimming went. Firstly, the plane came out a tad (one half inch) tail heavy in comparison to where the plans show the C/G. Not wanting a hairy first flight, I put a one ounce shaft weight inside the spinner and backed off the adjustable controlls a little from the normal 1/1 ratio. I put in 3/4 ounce tip weight, which was just enough to make the outboard wing drop when balanced off the spinner and tail wheel. Lead outs adjusted by hanging the plane and locking them down when the hinge line was just a hair tilted forward. Not very scientific, I know, but it always is pretty close for me that way.

First flights were very conservative, had Owen check for wings tilt, dead level upright & inverted. Absolutely no hunt whatsoever. No yaw in the corners, so really decent initial trim, though I'll probably find something I don't like eventually. New planes always feel great for some reason. Maybe adrenalin covers a multitude of sins.

I had some issues with my muffler having separation anxiety, but a little J/B Weld and another trip to the field allowed more flying and dialing in props and engine the next day.

The plane will fly slow if I want, which most previous planes would not do well. I can fly full pattern comfortably at a wide range from 5.2 to 5.7 sec where as I am usually more comfortable only around 5.2 with my other planes. I give credit to the high lift capability of the wing.

I plan on pulling out the nose weight and putting the elevator ratio to stock. After speaking with Dixon, he said the C/G on the plans is really a starting point, so the 1/2" rearward C/G without the spinner weight may be doable.

Turn quality is quite good, but requires more wrist action than I like.  Once again, returning it to original non-conservative trim will change that, plus I'm running a narrow handle spacing at the moment. It pulls out very flat, which is the typical Patternmaster style turn they were famous for.

The engine run still needs a little tuning, mostly tank issues I think. Nothing major, just some little details to chase down. I get a lean surge in the upright 5ft level pull outs, but it seems fine every where else. It leaves more fuel in the clunk tank than I would like and it doesn't shut down quite as clean as I would like.

All in all, I wouldn't hesitate to build another in-line plane. I built this dead stock including the airfoiled stab. I see no out of the ordinary trim problems, nor even potential ones. This is one fine design.

EricV

Offline Steve Fitton

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2272
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #63 on: April 05, 2007, 03:50:48 PM »
Well, we will finally have one more bit of data for Avanti stability.  Mine is FINALLY finished!  59 oz final weight, DS 60 for power.

Steve
Steve

Offline Bradley Walker

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1192
    • The Urban Rifleman
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #64 on: May 28, 2007, 09:43:24 AM »
The Avanti has really had a lot of attention in later years!!!

Most people are confused bacause Baron had two completely different Avantis, and most people just call all Avantis by the same name.  The original was 40 sized plane and used Natzband aerodynamics.  The latest version was a 60 sized variant with a Greenaway airfoil.  The size difference is very noticeable.

Reading through this thread I see a lot of broad brush stroke comments in regards to design.  Most, if not all of these comments are based on very limited practical exposure to various design elements, or completely "theoretical" logical leaps.

(To me) this is the story:

The Avanti uses an inline design.  This was not a new idea at all even when the original Avanti was designed.  This same arrangement was used by Casale (Spectrum, Columbia) and Zhiangdong  (Skywriter) nearly exclusively.  These fliers were DOMINANT fliers in their time (the Skywriter pretty much singlehandedly owned the podium at the WC's for what, a decade?), so I think there is enough "that guy fies it and wins with it" evidence (the most important evidence in stunt) to show that the inline airframe must not completely suck.  After all, from what I have seen if a popular flier flies something new it is usually accepted immediately.

I am pretty sure the Berringer Sportster airplanes are inline also.  These guys do not suck.  They do not suck at all.  The Sportsters does not "hunt", even with counterbalances on the elevator.  In fact, the Sportster is a very EASY flying plane (although a bitch to build).

Heck, I think the Impact stab is only offset 5/8" from the wing.  This would be consider "1/2 inline" compared to most 1960's designs (which typcially had the stab installed sitting on top of the fuselage sides). 

I think the Yatsenkos use very little stab offset also.  I believe these are nearly inline.  These do not suck!!!

In conclusion, watch out, you might get stomped by a guy flying an inline...

BTW, I do not use inlines myself (I don not like the way an inline stab assembles--a top loaded stab is so easy).  My Solace uses the Avanti 60 wing (in an symmetrical arrangement), and the stab offest is the same as I always use, which is (from memory) 5/8" above the wing line.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to his environment. The unreasonable man adapts his environment to himself, therefore all progress is made by unreasonable men."
-George Bernard Shaw

Offline proparc

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2391
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #65 on: May 28, 2007, 02:20:58 PM »
I built Banshee's many many-many years ago with all in line setups, (i think they they come that way can't remember); they sucked. Exhibited everything everyone has said about the design exactly.

It is also one of the reasons I feel the Patternmaster flies so well is because the stab is so friggin high!! Big Jim knew what he was doing, and he was specific about the high stab. Get it up there where it can earn it's pay. Windy comments on this in one of his construction videos which I have.
Milton "Proparc" Graham

Eric Viglione

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #66 on: May 28, 2007, 05:07:10 PM »
Milton - I'm as much of a BigJim fan as you, maybe more, but that doesn't wash. If it was a design flaw, ALL AVANTI's would hunt, not one, or some. All Banshee's should have the problem too, not just yours, or a few, or some.

Any plane built by imperfect human hands can hunt, have crappy turn, or be unstable. Most Banshee's that I saw hunt were from an extreeeemly nose heavy condition, usually from someone sticking a ST46 on a plane with a loooong nose meant for a Fox35. 25 years ago, I had a Banshee with a K&B GH 35 and the nose shortened 1/2" never hunted a lick. As a matter of fact, I sold my Shark, Nobler, etc. before I got married, put C/L down for 15years, and this was the plane was the only one I had left, and I used it to come back to C/L when I started flying again. Did a fairly good pattern for an ancient beat up profile too.

I recently built an Avanti and for the heck of it I tried the C/G as far as full INCH and a HALF behind where the plans show, and it was still completely groovy! Great turn, flat pull outs, round rounds, everything I want from a stunt ship. Jim Morris said in this thread his Avanti got him to the top of Adv. class with no ill issues. Louis Rankin's new Avanti does not hunt, and flew good too. Fitton's new Avanti is Groovy in level flight also. That's 4 for 4 new Avanti's with no hunting problems. Who ever started the rumor or thought process of Avanti's hunting or being unstable either flew one with the C/G or handle (or both) in an uncomfortable spot for their flying style, or flew one that happened to have some other issue. It surely wasn't the design!

I don't think in-line setups have much if any negative effect with the size and speed of the C/L models we fly in the real world, regardless of theory, calculators or Cray SuperCompuuuuuuters! VD~ In our reality, the hands on data above says it's a non-issue.

That all said, I don't think I'm married to the in-line designs either. No room for a pipe with that thick wing (without adding a lot of fuselage below), and as Brad said it's harder to build, etc. But let's give Baron a little credit, his design not only works, but it works well.

EricV

Offline Bradley Walker

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1192
    • The Urban Rifleman
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #67 on: May 28, 2007, 06:22:39 PM »
Milton - I'm as much of a BigJim fan as you, maybe more, but that doesn't wash. If it was a design flaw, ALL AVANTI's would hunt, not one, or some. All Banshee's should have the problem too, not just yours, or a few, or some.

I agree with this statement.  I think I was trying to say the same thing, but maybe I did not do a very good job.  So much is lost on internet posts...  A lot of "Texas logic" is thrown about in stunt.  This is the logic that "what you see much be true", then reasons are invented to explain it. 

"So and So had one of those and it hunted like crazy, must be that inline stab". 
"So and so won the Nats with that design, it must be better than all the others"
"That guy was using a 6 pitch prop and I saw it wind up and he lost the contest, low pitch props are better in the wind"

The opposite is true when someone sees something going the other way... 

"That Yatsenko plane flies great in the wind, what the heck???  How can that be happening???  I heard they use 6 pitch props, forward CG's, and little bitty stabs and those don't work."  (BTW, I heard this a lot at the Muncie WC's).

I think that there are few elements to most design discussions:

1.  Design, power train, patterns, etc are a regional phenomenon.  If you were to come to Texas 6 years ago, chances are that a large contingent of fliers would say that you needed a Bear, a PA, and 4 blade prop to be competitive (this was the case for me when I moved here).  If you attended the NW Regionals 10 years ago, I am sure you would have heard the same thing about a TP, Impact, and an OS VF.  Same could be said for a Greenaway design, and ST 60 if you went Northeast, or an SV-11 in the Southwest.  Now there is a whole new region called "the rest of the world" which has chosen to embrace a whole different set of design parameters to be get the job done and they vary even more wildly than the US regions.
2.  Most people (if not all) are guessing at why something works or does not work.  We simply have no idea why certain things work, and even varying the variables either at the field or in subsequent designs does not necessarily ensure that a whole NEW set of variables has not crept in to skew the results (like maybe that new plane is straighter than the old one by a fraction).  We really do not have the resources to do much more than try trial and error design, and the data set is so small (how many ships does one person really build?) that we can "guess" at design elements and their effects, but unless the change is truly DRASTIC the effects are "in the noise" as Brett says.
3.  Truly, these designs have changed so little in 50 years, top fliers could compete with very old designs and still do about the same.  This is true even though many older designs had no "modern design" elements at all.
4.  Personal preference creeps into every single one of these discussions.  What I mean is that, even if I flew the Nats winner's airplane I might not like it.  This would ultimately be due to neutral setting, control rate, CG, handle type, engine run type, airplane speed, etc which would have more to do with whether someone would like the experience rather than the airplane itself.  People get used to a certain "look" or "feel" of a pattern, and that is what they want to see.  Everything else is not as good, even if another design (with a particular pilot) flies the pattern more correctly.

I think the main disadvantage to the inline setup is the asymmetry built into the rear pushrod.  I think that Tom Morris published a work about how as the angle of the rear pushrod is increased relative the wing and stab, more asymmetry is built into the controls.  I will just have to say that this makes sense, even though I have never actually tried to prove it to myself (Tom has little demo models built).  Someone might be able to comment here, as I do not remember the specifics that Tom discussed.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to his environment. The unreasonable man adapts his environment to himself, therefore all progress is made by unreasonable men."
-George Bernard Shaw

Offline proparc

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2391
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #68 on: May 28, 2007, 08:03:41 PM »
None of my Banshee's had the long nose. We knew about that in New York even then. You are absolutely correct, hunting can be attributed to a number of factors must of which I know, I personally believe that in the case of the Banshee's it was the in-line se-tup.

Here we go with the usual disclaimer: having an inline setup does not guarantee a hunter.  A lot of world class airplanes have it. But in the case of the Banshee, I am not budging one inch that one!!

Next disclaimer: Having a relatively high stab will not gaurantee you a tracker lol. When these responses are given, it is assumed that fairly seasoned cats like Ted and yourself are reading them. That said, THEY ALREADY KNOW that stunt ships are a complex blend of ingredients and just like cooking, any number of ingredients in any combination can make or break a dish. We are all,(most of us) familiar with the Humbug. That probably is one the most "outside" stunt ships to score big. That plane broke about ALL the rules and yet it worked.

I could go a lot deeper about the Banshee if I wanted to,( I built a lot of them). But I am not going to. Heck, I could even argue about the "low stab" on the Phil Kraft RC Ugly Stick, built that too, but that's a whole can of worms also.
Milton "Proparc" Graham

Offline Jim Morris

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 237
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #69 on: May 29, 2007, 08:00:44 AM »
Stiff controls can cause a plane to hunt big time, both Avantis I have or had never hunted.

Offline Bill Little

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12676
  • Second in COMMAND
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #70 on: May 29, 2007, 08:50:28 AM »
My experience is limited, but I did build the "Little Junar" which was totally inline.  It flew fabulous until I pranged it less than a month before the '96 NATS (dumb old wake turbulence and my ignorance!) and my rush repair didn't get everything lined back up correctly.

Like has been suggested several times, it really is probably all personal preference along with what you're willing to work on and trim out.

Bob Hunt tells the story (maybe he will jump in and correct me if I miss the actual details!) of Billy flying Bob's Genesis 46.  IIRC, it was the plane Bob won the World's with!  After take off, Billy yelled at Bob to come take the plane because he couldn't fly it!  It was just a completely different trim set up than Billy flew.  Bob has also said that he started on a whole new trimming set up after that.
Big Bear <><

Aberdeen, NC

James Hylton Motorsports/NASCAR/ARCA

AMA 95351 (got one of my old numbers back! ;D )

Trying to get by

Offline Bradley Walker

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1192
    • The Urban Rifleman
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #71 on: May 29, 2007, 10:42:29 AM »
Bob Hunt tells the story (maybe he will jump in and correct me if I miss the actual details!) of Billy flying Bob's Genesis 46.  IIRC, it was the plane Bob won the World's with!  After take off, Billy yelled at Bob to come take the plane because he couldn't fly it!  It was just a completely different trim set up than Billy flew.  Bob has also said that he started on a whole new trimming set up after that.

Yah, I guess that WORLD CHAMPS winning setup just sucked!!!! LL~
"The reasonable man adapts himself to his environment. The unreasonable man adapts his environment to himself, therefore all progress is made by unreasonable men."
-George Bernard Shaw

Offline Jim Morris

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • ****
  • Posts: 237
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #72 on: May 29, 2007, 12:16:02 PM »
The way we trim is a very personal thing. What one person likes may not work for another person. Why couldnt Billy just fly level?

Offline Mike Ferguson

  • AMA Member
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 285
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #73 on: May 29, 2007, 12:42:23 PM »
Yah, I guess that WORLD CHAMPS winning setup just sucked!!!! LL~

Somehow, I don't think it sucked.  ;D  But Bob probably saw something better in the way Billy trimmed his airplanes than the way he was trimming them at the time (most likely very nose heavy with a far-forward CG, which was the typical "East Coast" trim then).  I don't see anything wrong with switching from a "winning" setup to something you think might be even better.

Ted Fancher's ST. 46 powered stuff flew pretty awesome.  He won a few Walker Cups with them.  But that didn't stop the evolution to the piped Trivial Pursuit.

Jim Casale won two back-to-back Walker Cups with the big jet-styled Columbia.  But despite that, he was moving towards flying a much smaller plane trimmed very differently from his "winning" stuff before he finally hung up the lines and got out of the hobby.  Even despite the fact that he liked the Columbia - a lot - and had won the Nats twice with it, he really thought a "program" with a smaller, piped airplane would be a much better setup.  Didn't work out that way, but that's where things were headed.

Hey, even Tiger Woods re-engineered his entire swing after crushing everybody in the Masters.  People thought he was nuts at the time.  Doesn't look so crazy now ... 

Offline proparc

  • 2015
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2391
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #74 on: May 29, 2007, 01:07:14 PM »
Any combination of stunt parameters can be made to work depending on the other associated parameters i.e. the cooking ingredients factor, but, if we are arguing design elements IN THIS SECTION of the forum then, it is my opinion that balancing the parameters for the all inline setup gets tougher particular when the plane is smaller and the moments get closer like a Banshee.

If this argument is really going to heat up, this statement is probably going to be the one to do it. I personally believe that the closer the stab is to the wing, the more critical its placement becomes.  Conversely, the farther away the stab is from the wing, the more crap you can get away. An example would be like in the Beringers hyper long moment planes, the stab placement is considerably less critical than in a Banshee or Magician or even a Nobler. This is important, when I say placement, I am referring to vertical placement only. The other factors impart their own set of parameters.

The other hot button issue here, maybe, is my belief that, as you go up in power\prop size\thrust, the stab placement also seems to become more critical.  These two statements should be enough to get you cats screaming so I’ll hold it right there. 

Stab size, shape, placement, airfoil, incident angle, etc are critical elements relative to the main lifting body, the wing. Dave Fitzgerald really laid into this big time with his Stargazer stabilizer development articles.

One of the first things I did when I went from Backfire 1 to Backfire 2 was raise that stab now!!! I was coming off of a ST 46\ST 51 mindset and the Saito 72 was a WHOLE DIFFERENT CAN OF WORMS. I knew I wasn't in Kansas anymore before I pulled the stooge on the big block because of what went down on the test stand. But, just exactly what was going to happen in the air got my attention REAL FAST.

In this case, because I knew Ted Fanchers "Imitation" article practically verbatim, even before I left the flying field, I knew that I was going to have to try to slap more of a "drag line" on the back of ship and bring more stability into the equation fast if I was going to continue on with this motor.

Stabs create lift, the by product of lift is drag. "Drag aft of the CG is stabilizing in its effect"- Ted Fancher-September\October 1979-Model Aviation Magazine-reference. Hope that is referenced properly, been out of college for a while lol.

It is my opinion still to this day, that the Magician is a damn side better airplane than the Banshee ever was OR IS, simply because Jim Silhavy seemed to know where the hell to “put stuff” even in a ship as close couple as that one.

The last thing, if we are going to argue design elements, it is important that we behave like adults and conduct ourselves in a manner conducive to not inhibiting input whether we agree with it or not.  This is how we learn.

Milt “Proparc” Graham
Milton "Proparc" Graham

Offline Steve Fitton

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2272
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #75 on: May 29, 2007, 01:55:17 PM »
Isn't the Stunt Wagon inline?  Thats VERY close coupled and grooves like a mack truck.

I'm just not sure making something inline is really that big of a change.  My Avanti 60 really flies no worse or better than my Time Machine, which is of course just a small Patternmaster.  Fitzgerald's experiments with stab configuration vs placement seem to indicate the type of stab counts more than its placement.

Steve
Steve

Offline Bradley Walker

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1192
    • The Urban Rifleman
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #76 on: May 29, 2007, 02:04:55 PM »
Hey, even Tiger Woods re-engineered his entire swing after crushing everybody in the Masters.  People thought he was nuts at the time.  Doesn't look so crazy now ... 

Interesting example...

Many people would argue that Tiger has NOT improved his swing, and actually is successful these days IN SPITE of this new faulty swing.

Also, I could make the case that, for every Tiger or Nick Faldo story that sees a swing revamp which results in a jump in performance there are HUNDREDS of golfers who have tried to make drastic changes in their swings to elevate only to DISAPPEAR FOREVER.  In this manner the golfers of the previous generation were much more consistent in many ways, becasue they remained very true to their methods, no matter how quirky.

In the same manner, I would think that the top pilots would be doing exactly the same if they were flying ST 46's, ST 60's, and even Fox 35's and 30 and 40 year old designs.  Most of the fliers at the Muncie WC's were flying very "old school" setups.  I could see no advantage for equipment for the folks that were flying the latest generation stuff.  In fact, I saw a lot of modern, high tech setups fall behind.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to his environment. The unreasonable man adapts his environment to himself, therefore all progress is made by unreasonable men."
-George Bernard Shaw

Offline Jim Pollock

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 948
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #77 on: May 29, 2007, 06:39:29 PM »
Brad,

Bill's modern high tech stuff didn't fall behind in '04 now, did it?
I think the U.S. contingent did fall behind somewhat; mostly due
to circumstances in '06 though.......

Jim Pollock   S?P

Offline Jim Pollock

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 948
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #78 on: May 29, 2007, 06:46:24 PM »
Oh yes,

One other thing.  After reading Dave's d'tails article, I think we would be doing well
by increasing stab/elevator size enough to put an aerodynamic balance on our
elevators.  Anyone willing to try that on an Impact, Trivial Pursuit or Infinity and
report back here on the results??

Jim Pollock   BW@

Offline Bradley Walker

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1192
    • The Urban Rifleman
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #79 on: May 29, 2007, 07:55:32 PM »
Oh yes,

One other thing.  After reading Dave's d'tails article, I think we would be doing well
by increasing stab/elevator size enough to put an aerodynamic balance on our
elevators.  Anyone willing to try that on an Impact, Trivial Pursuit or Infinity and
report back here on the results??

Jim Pollock   BW@

I did.

My Mr. Hyde had counterbalances.  I glued them back to the stab at the 2003 Nats.  I wish I would have known that the Rabe rudder was malfunctioning, and the crazy behavior at that contest had nothing to do with the elevator (talk about a tiger by the tail).  The counterbalances work very well, especially in conjunction with a forward CG.  At the same time, I would be the first to say, they are completely unnecessary given the level of corner required to score well, or that I am capable of flying!

My UHP Impact Shear Panic currently has counterbalances.  I should probably make them even bigger now that the engine is out to 11".  HA!!!

BTW, I am not  S?P.

What I am trying to say is that things on the whole, really haven't changed much design wise, even power wise in stunt in 40 years.  There is an envelope of operation that will lead to success and operating much outside that envelope is scary at best, and oftentimes not as fruitful as just sticking to the basics and learning to do it over and over again, better and better, and just fly the dang pattern.  Very little of the success of the top fliers has ever been attributed to a change in equipment.    In fact, I cannot think of one instance where a flier made a huge change in equipment and vaulted to the front of the pack.  Bill, as you said won with a ST 46 and 7 pitch and a piped 40 with a 4 pitch (on similar airplanes).  Both at the time were crowned the "ultimate setup".

True the modern equipment allows for more adjustment and the engines are generally manufactured better, but other than that you only need a basic system to be very successful, if you can fly that is...  I saw Doug Moon dominate Texas for a whole year flying a borrowed Buccaneer and a borrowed LA 46 with a $3 prop.

In fact, all of the current top fliers were successful with many different setups.  Most, however, STARTED, and CUT THEIR TEETH on very simple setups like the old baffle engine setups and older design airplanes.  I bet Paul could drop an OS FSR in one of his old planes (pre Impact) and maybe not even change spots in the order of finish in the next contest.  This is meant to be a compliment. You CANNOT BUY A PATTERN!!!!  Trust me on this, I tried....  All the while I was falling behind chasing a dream of technical superiority.  It really does not exist.

My friend Bill is running a Johnson 35 the same way he ran his Magnum 36 for example (he likes the low pitch high RPM run).  40 years difference in technology, same run...  He is flying a Panther, and I bet it would score with any of the modern rigs when it comes right down to it.

Most of the design changes to stunt planes are a endless "do loop".  This goes up, that has to go down, etc etc etc

I think that folks just get bored and want to try something different, even if they gain nothing ,or even fall back.  It is part of the fun, I guess.  Most of the design aspects bantered about or even hotly debated to the point of being feudal are subtle at best.  One has to be careful defending a particular new revelation in design because somebody might show up and stomp you into the ground with your old setup that you said sucked....ask me about this. ;D

I think Proparc had it right.  We need to just try to be helpful and open minded.  This means you must clear your mind of the idea there are absolutes in this game far outside of the norm.  To be a good engineer, you must be humble at times.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to his environment. The unreasonable man adapts his environment to himself, therefore all progress is made by unreasonable men."
-George Bernard Shaw

Offline Bradley Walker

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 1192
    • The Urban Rifleman
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #80 on: May 29, 2007, 08:09:21 PM »
Brad,

Bill's modern high tech stuff didn't fall behind in '04 now, did it?
I think the U.S. contingent did fall behind somewhat; mostly due
to circumstances in '06 though.......

Jim Pollock   S?P


Keep in mind Bill was flying a 6-7 year old plane???  Something like that, I am not sure of the exact age, but it was not new...  Bill said he had it for some number of years.  I think he had been running the same engine setup in it for some time.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to his environment. The unreasonable man adapts his environment to himself, therefore all progress is made by unreasonable men."
-George Bernard Shaw

Offline Jim Pollock

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • ******
  • Posts: 948
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #81 on: May 30, 2007, 06:07:50 PM »
Brad,

It's my opinion anyway, that using the counterbalances could make for somewhat better cornering of our planes.  Mind you, not a great improvement, marginal, but at least noticeable in the pattern.  I agree that corners can't be done any better than you are capable of controlling with your hand and arm and mind....

Brad, have you been to a Nats and flown since '03?  I haven't been to one since the debacle of '04 that you must have witnessed!

Jim Pollock   :o

Offline MikeyPratt

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #82 on: June 02, 2007, 01:22:48 PM »
Steve,

I look forward to your further experiences. 

I want to restate that Bob flew his Avanti extremely well and I expect it is possible (perhaps likely) that had I been able to retrim it to suit my preferred response rates I might have had an entirely different view of the ship.  In that particular case I think it would have been necessary to significantly change the onboard control geometry because the handle already had very wide line spacing yet the response rate was inordinately slow.

In that respect I'd be interested in knowing what the control geometry on your ship is.  Are the controls very, very slow?  It sounds unlikely based on your description of your first flight but, if the ship was really tail heavy that might have masked the situation.  Also curious to know where (at the half span) the ship balanced then and to where you will be moving the CG to correct the situation.

Ted

I don’t really agree with Ted and Brett on this issue.  I have plenty of experience with in-line designs and think they do very well in all aspects of flying.  It is more a matter of set up and trim with the proper CG and control response that the flyer becomes comfortable with.  Believe me I have gone back and forth from the in-line to conventional set ups and either one can be made to work very well.  Honestly I don’t see either as having an advantage over the other.  My G-Force is a conventional set up and it always had a small hunt to it when the CG is set to the turn rate that I prefer but I don’t think it is a design problem (maybe bellcrank wobble?) but more of a mechanical problem.  I can trim out any hint of a hunt but I like the faster turn rate so I put up with it.  I know it is getting old but it still flies well even if it has picked up a little weight over the years.  The Force and the P-Force are both in-line designs and that don’t hunt (when properly assembled) at all.  The Magnum Force had the wing & stab in-line with the engine thrust line 5/8” above the wing & stab.  The M/F had a few issues but groove and turn rate weren’t the problems.  Super Dave was very close to an in-line design with the engine and stab set at 1/2” above the wing center line.

 

I’ve also had the opportunity to fly other in-line design such as the Avanti, Skywriter, and Humbug along with a few others.  All were very capable models when properly trimmed in my opinion.   Many years ago Bob Whitely (before he became so grumpy) suggested that I add some down thrust (0.5°) and shorten the pushrod one turn on the elevator clevis to load the controls surfaces so the bottoms would became more consistent.  This worked extremely well on the silver Magnum and I’ve used the same procedure on in-line models that people were having trouble trimming out.

 

I think part of the bad rap that in-line designs get is from builders not paying attention to ensure the control system has the proper control geometry for equal turn rates on both inside and outside maneuvers.  For example, both the Force and Magnum Force had the flap horns angled to the rear 1.5 ° and the elevator horn is angled forward 1.5°.  This allowed the flaps and elevators to move equal amounts for a set amount of control input from the bellcrank.  In other words flap deflection equaled the opposite amount elevator deflection through out the full range of control movement.

 

Later,

Mikey


Offline Bill Little

  • 2017
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 12676
  • Second in COMMAND
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #83 on: June 02, 2007, 02:06:20 PM »
[qoute]My friend Bill is running a Johnson 35 the same way he ran his Magnum 36 for example (he likes the low pitch high RPM run).  40 years difference in technology, same run...  He is flying a Panther, and I bet it would score with any of the modern rigs when it comes right down to it.
[/quote]

Hi Brad,

Juri Sirotkin won the '64 WC with a 10-4 prop on a MVVS "35" engine running in a two stroke.  His earlier ('62) plane even used a bladder! 

So yes, there is very *little* new under the (CLPA) sun! ;D
Big Bear <><

Aberdeen, NC

James Hylton Motorsports/NASCAR/ARCA

AMA 95351 (got one of my old numbers back! ;D )

Trying to get by

Offline Steve Fitton

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 2272
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #84 on: November 05, 2007, 12:59:08 PM »
Well, my Avanti programme has come to a disastrous end.........


« Last Edit: November 05, 2007, 05:04:54 PM by Steve Fitton »
Steve

Offline Matt Brown

  • 23 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 287
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #85 on: November 29, 2022, 01:08:05 PM »
Sorry for bringing this back to life! Someone linked to this thread in response to another thread. I read it last night and was interested in all different opinions presented. Then just a few minutes ago someone posted pictures on the PAMPA  facebook page that made me think what’s up. This thread started talking primarily about Bob Baron’s Avanti. I noticed the pics of one of Bob’s Avantis definitely wasn’t an in-line design!
I just thought the timing of reading this thread and a couple pics popping up on facebook was interesting!

Offline Dave Hull

  • 24 supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Admiral
  • *
  • Posts: 1901
Re: Stabs and the "AVANTI" for Ted.
« Reply #86 on: December 13, 2022, 12:36:03 AM »
Avanti II from Flying Models plans

60" wingspan

In line geometry

https://freercplans.com/plan-holy-mackeral-3567.htm


Avanti from Model Airplane News January 1978

60" wingspan

Offset wing/stab/engine

Swept rudder

The plane in the pictures differs from the plans in terms of wing planform, wingtips, stab tips, etc. Not sure why? The plans might be showing a differential flap setup, too.

https://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=11248


Advertise Here
Tags:
 


Advertise Here