E=MC3

[Jerry Budd]

>Jerry
>
>Am I reading this correctly "... but > it came out nose heavy so I had it
>moved back 1-1/8" from there to > get it to balance properly" ??
>Did you mean tail heavy?

Oops, Van Puttian error!	Hi Ron!   : )

You're correct, I meant to say "tail heavy".

>
>BTW, great pictures and color scheme.  Also, moving wing up gives more
>stability (effect of increased dihedral) so reducing some dihedral is
>probably in order.  Glad it is flying well.

Actually, every E=MC2 I had come across didn't have enough dihedral 
so raising the wing was an effort to fix that, eliminate the 
differential being used (resulting in a better, more axially rolling 
airplane), and improve the lateral gust response characteristics by 
reducing Dutch roll tendancies (just adding geometric dihedral 
wouldn't necessarily help that, and in fact might even make it 
worse).  I went from slight adverse roll to slight proverse roll, so 
now I'l reducing the geometric dihedral just a bit to eliminate the 
residual roll coupling (just fine tuning it really).

>
>Wojtek
>
>Do you remember practicing at the NATS and changing servos (throttle if I
>remember correctly)?

Oh yeah.  Not the best Nats I ever attended.  And it got worse for me 
on Monday when I didn't get a flight in due to additional enine 
problems.

Thx, Jerry
-- 
___________
Jerry Budd
mailto:jbudd at qnet.com
=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to 
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#