Clipped, Electric weight, E-Impact first flights

[patterndude at comcast.net]

Funny Bob!

I'm glad that comment enlightened you Jim,but it sounds like hyberbole to me.  Some planes handle better in wind than others.  As a designer I've flown the same plane with different wing/stab incidences and had it affect the tracking.  Mostly I've found staying near 0-0 is good, but look at a Focus - it has ridiculous side thrust and extreme incidences and flys fine. Of course setting one up at 0-0 might fly fine too, I don't know.  I guess I was hoping for some insight on what to do to maximize the tracking ability of a plane that otherwise is in trim.

Thanks.  Your posts are always great.
--Lance


--
District 6 AVP 
www.aeroslave.com

-------------- Original message -------------- 

> THAT's an easy one, Jim. Most of my airplanes DO "fly like Trucks", or buses, 
> or .... 
> > 
> > From: Jim_Woodward at beaerospace.com 
> > Date: 2005/06/14 Tue AM 09:48:03 EDT 
> > To: discussion at nsrca.org 
> > Subject: Re: Clipped, Electric weight, E-Impact first flights 
> > 
> > Hi Lance, 
> > 
> > I'll just say one thing that has stuck with me - which is my analogy to a 
> > lot of themes which I can't remember word for word. If your plane doesn't 
> > drive lines with a stability or determination reminiscent of a freight 
> > train or loaded diesel truck, your plane is not flying as well as it can. 
> > 
> > Jim W. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > patterndude at comcast.net 
> > Sent by: discussion-request at nsrca.org 
> > 06/13/2005 05:11 PM 
> > Please respond to 
> > discussion at nsrca.org 
> > 
> > 
> > To 
> > discussion at nsrca.org 
> > cc 
> > 
> > Subject 
> > Re: Clipped, Electric weight, E-Impact first flights 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Excellent post. so what did Tony F say about trimming that you can apply 
> > to all planes? 
> > --Lance 
> > 
> > -- 
> > District 6 AVP 
> > www.aeroslave.com 
> > 
> > -------------- Original message -------------- 
> > 
> > (2nd attempt) 
> > Jim O., 
> > 
> > I'm not sure what gear box I have, as I'm not really familiar with the 
> > previous Hacker motors. I do see some bolt heads on the back of the 
> > motor, which would suggest to me that they run through the motor and into 
> > the gear box in the front. At the front of the gear box, all you see is 
> > the bearing with the actual receiving holes for the motor-mounting screws. 
> > 
> > 
> > I flew the Impact 4 flights this weekend. I did this while flying my 
> > Aggressor, and breaking in a new OS 140 RX. It was one of the funnest, 
> > BEST pattern day's I've ever had. I flew the E-Impact and immediately 
> > liked the power and speed control (and ease). The Impact itself, didn't 
> > jump off the board as a perfectly trimmed plane, so I knew I had a little 
> > work to do. After the first flight, the concept was DEFINITELY proven, 
> > and I quickly deduced that I need more batteries (first flight was 
> > Saturday evening). After this first flight (with John B. from Surinam 
> > watching), we determined the need to paint the bottom of the wings and 
> > canopy. We ran to Lowes and bought some florescent red/orange to paint 
> > the stab and wing tips, and we also painted the canopy metallic silver. 
> > Also determined that the plane was tail heavy quite a bit. Anyone 
> > familiar with the Impact thread on RCU knows exactly what I'm talking 
> > about in regards to the Impact. 
> > 
> > Sunday morning with CG moved forward, the plane flew better and the small 
> > amount of color we put on the plane definitely made a huge difference. 
> > After this second flight, also determined that the CG was still too far 
> > aft, and that the battery needed to be moved forward (at this point, knife 
> > edge needed no mixing), and the plane was carrying a small amount of 
> > aileron trim. 
> > 
> > Then, I flew the Aggressor for the first flight with the OS 140 RX and 
> > 17x10 APC. With th 17x10, the OS was nearly "super-sonic" compared to the 
> > Impact, however immediately, the Aggressor's trimmed status and 
> > "locked-on" look/feel was evident (as anyone who has seen the plane fly in 
> > D3 would attest to. Due to charging time of the E-Impact, I swapped props 
> > to the Mez 18x10, adjusted the throttle curve, and started moving the 
> > speed envelope of the Aggressor down to match the Impact in a couple more 
> > flights. My first thought was that if I had the E-setup in the Aggressor, 
> > it would be an unstoppable machine! (Aggressor weight without fuel is 10 
> > lbs 13 oz). 
> > 
> > Time for another flight on the Impact. I flew through PO5 this time, and 
> > started getting used to the E-power curve, some rates, etc. The forward 
> > CG move started to pay off, and the plane was drawing better lines (but 
> > still not like my glow plane, which is understandable as this was only the 
> > third flight on the model). After this flight, again, decided the CG 
> > needed to go MORE forward. Also, we determined that the right wing tip 
> > needed about 14 grams of weight to laterally balance the model (a step I 
> > did not do in the garage, we added the tip weight at the field). 
> > 
> > Back to the Aggressor: I flew two more flight back to back on the 
> > Aggressor, each time improving the throttle curve to make it easier to 
> > match the envelop of the Impact. The OS ran perfect, and I'm sad that 
> > after 5 years of screwing with other engines, to have not just spent the 
> > little bit of extra money and ran the OS all along. Through each flight 
> > (90 degrees, 90% humidity), the OS ran superb. Inflight throttling was 
> > great, you could tell the motor was not getting hot, and it was making 
> > ridiculous vertical power. (by the way, this was on an OS A5 plug, C.P. 
> > 25% pro-pattern, and ES pipe). The OS runs VERY smooth with a crazy low 
> > idle. I'm VERY happy with how it ran - not a single dead stick through 
> > its first 5 flights - nothing but awesome performance. The locked in 
> > (trimmed) status of the Aggressor, now flying in the slower speed 
> > enveloped, had convinced John that this was still the "ticket" as compared 
> > to where the Impact was after 3 flights. 
> > 
> > Back to the E-Impact!!!!!!!!!! For this flight, the 6000 Pro-Lite T.P. 
> > battery was moved as far forward as possible (just behind motor). This 
> > flight showed some incredible potential. In this CG config., the Impact 
> > was driving lines similar to the Aggressor (up, down, 45's, etc), and 
> > rolling VERY well. Also, the wing tip weight on the right wing made EVERY 
> > SINGLE MANEUVER look better. The wings were much more locked on, the 
> > plane rolled better, exited snaps better, spinned better. This was a 
> > great trimming lesson to me, as the day was getting cross-windy (worse) 
> > through out the day as the ruminants of the tropical storm passed through, 
> > however in the worsening conditions, this was the BEST of the flights.. 
> > After this flight, John immediately was convinced that this was indeed 
> > going to be a solid backup or first plane for the nats. I'm still going 
> > to move the receiver battery forward now though, and probably make a 
> > lighter rudder (which wouldn't hurt things anyway). (hacker controller 
> > has 3 degrees timing). 
> > 
> > Charging: I alternated by charging from the car battery, then letting the 
> > car idle for the next charge (guess what - no big deal to do this if 
> > necessary). However my limitation is that I only have one Astro 109 as 
> > the second one has not arrived yet. Thus, instead of 45 minute turnaround 
> > times, I was 1.5 hrs between flights. 
> > 
> > Impact: I followed some RCU advice and started with a CG on the center of 
> > the wing tube, without wings on. This is in serious error. However, the 
> > plane will dive mildly when in inverted flight, and it gives the 
> > impression through simple tests that the CG is correct. With this CG, the 
> > plane flys off the tail. In radius, the tails squats and the plane will 
> > fly tail low. After I was done with it, the plane was following the nose, 
> > driving excellent lines, similar to the Aggressor (still thanking Tony F. 
> > for the trimming help on my Lazulite,which has now gone into all my 
> > planes!). 
> > 
> > Glow / Electric: In a quick comparison, a trimmed plane is what you need. 
> > Electric power itself will help with presentation and probably hide some 
> > airplane tendencies (if bad), due to the smaller speed envelope. Although, 
> > the power and the plane are working together, they are still a bit 
> > separate. I guess I'm trying to say that a poorly trimmed plane is going 
> > to hurt you no matter what motor you have in it. I'm guessing purely 
> > guessing now though, that if two identical planes, both completely 
> > trimmed, were equipped with glow and electric, that the E-setup would take 
> > the cake as it would allow more of a "show-casing" of the maneuver set. 
> > More to follow......... 
> > 
> > Thanks, welcome questions, comments, public or private. 
> > 
> > Jim W. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> Bob Pastorello, El Reno, OK, USA 
> rcaerobob at cox.net 
> www.rcaerobats.net 
> 
> ================================================= 
> To access the email archives for this list, go to 
> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/ 
> To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm 
> and follow the instructions. 
> 
> List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the list. 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050614/4fd2ad95/attachment-0001.html