[NSRCA-discussion] the joy of trim

James Oddino joddino at socal.rr.com
Sun Mar 9 21:26:21 AKDT 2008


1) Low throttle to down elevator mix.  About 2% only at low end.
2) Rudder to Elevator mix.

Jim O


On Mar 9, 2008, at 12:07 AM, Keith Black wrote:

> OK Bryan, I'll take you up on your offer.
>
> Plane:
>
>   Beryll (you've had experience last year with Brett's)
>
> Problems:
>
>   1) Pull to canopy on downline
>
>   2) Tuck to belly on knife edge.
>
>   (haven't noticed a pull to the canopy on upline, but really didn't  
> test
> that closely)
>
> History:
>
> Initial setup incidence was .5+, CG about 175 mm behind leading  
> edge. First
> flights felt very nose heavy, when rolling inverted seemed to need  
> lots of
> down elevator, also the 45 deg up then roll to inverted test dropped  
> nose
> more quickly than I like. Also as noted above it pull to belly on  
> knife edge
> and pulled to canopy on downline.
>
> To help solve tuck to belly in knife edge I increased the incidence  
> as much
> as I could (without a dremmel) probably a 1.5 to 2 turns. Also moved  
> CG back
> about 3/8" or so to help nose heavy feel. Changes improved nose  
> heavy feel
> and seemed to improve downline pull to canopy a bit, but it needs  
> further
> improvement as it still pulls to canopy in dive. I ended up mixing  
> out pull
> to belly in knife edge as the adjustments didn't help that.
>
> So what do you suggest? Seems like the move of the CG helped the  
> inverted
> flight and transition to inverted on slow roll. I'm concerned that
> increasing the incidence more and moving CG forward may fix belly  
> tuck in
> dive but would lead to nose heavy feel of inverted flight again. I  
> know can
> increase the down elevator (or remove expo) to offset the nose heavy  
> feel,
> but I don't like the transition from upright flight to knife edge to  
> require
> so much top rudder that it throws off the track when at the 1/8  
> point of the
> roll.
>
> What say you Sensei?
>
> Thanks,
> Keith
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <shinden1 at cox.net>
> To: "xvcNSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 10:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] the joy of trim
>
>
>> thanks Lance
>> we all know I`m a terrible writer and thats part of my reasoning here
>> I have great respect for Matt and his abilities he is a great  
>> modeler and
>> designer.
>> I am trying to use past experience when helping with these issues  
>> as a
>> guide to how far out of line these things can get because of a
>> misunderstanding that leads into a poor fix
>> or a modeler who is not up to the task and trys to take the shortcut
>> ,,,there are no shortcuts
>> I would be willing to bet 98% of pattern fliers don`t even know  
>> what their
>> down thust is and have never measured it. 1deg down is a lot.
>> and most could not find a baseline to start with as a watermark for  
>> later
>> measurements
>> I was trying to point out that it should be a method of fine tuning  
>> rather
>> than using it to steer a wayward airplane into submission.
>> The wing is the most important ,powerful and effective way to adjust
>> flight path ,,, airfoil ,stab placement , engine thrust ,,are way  
>> down the
>> list in importance as seen with a foamy,,
>>
>> First things first ,,get the wing inc right THEN,, the ac/g ..you  
>> would be
>> surprised at how for off you can fly c/g and get away with it ,,,
>> What Matt and I call pulling to the Canopy and what Joe Blow calles  
>> it i`m
>> sure ,, are two different things.{BTW I would bet most of the  
>> fliers out
>> there with differential fix problems ,,are there becuase of an up  
>> line
>> pull,
>> usually because your flying a tail heavy airplane } if ou use tail  
>> weight
>> to create a pos angle of attack lots of little problems arise you  
>> have to
>> use inc to creat the lift and C/g to adjust the feel
>> earlier I was trying to make the bigger picture nothing against  
>> what Matt
>> was offering ,,,,
>>
>> I disagree there is more than one way to trim there is only one way
>> our accepted outcome is the difference
>> I would like to say I`m probably more hard headed than the Next  
>> guy , so
>> I stick to my guns till proven wrong but accept it when I can be  
>> proven
>> wrong,,  ,,  after designing over 15 pattern airplanes and keeping  
>> notes
>> ,,, my outcome notes all say the same thing in the end ,it never  
>> changes
>> ,,even when I get a bright idea to change or tweak the setup it  
>> leads me
>> back to where I started.
>> After watching Arch fly his Black magic in the bumpy 25mph winds in  
>> Crowly
>> La. A smoking performance ,,,I might add
>> the BM appeared to be on rails then,,watching my own airplane dance  
>> around
>> I realized something I knew But had ignored ,,,it made me go back  
>> to the
>> notes where I found the answer ,,, it never changed!!
>> the BM was a great design Properly trimmed BUT,
>> I,, had been trying to adjust upline canopy pull with engine thrust  
>> and
>> tail weight ,,,,I don`t have the Luxury of calling the designer and  
>> asking
>> where to put the C/G and wing Inc ,,,I have to find it <G>
>> when I realized it needed more wing inc less tail weight and less  
>> down
>> thrust  it reaffirmed my notes and when the next time I flew in those
>> conditions it proved me right you have to balance all these things
>> The airplane flys around the wing ,,,,let the airplane talk to  
>> you ,,be
>> honest in you evaluations accept nothing but absolute perfection it  
>> is
>> attainable
>>
>> would anyone like to try an onlist diagnosis of their airplane?
>> you tell me the Set up ,,they must be very Accurate give me the  
>> Symptoms
>> ,,and I`ll provide the cure
>> you tell us what is happening with the input ,,,BEWARE it can be  
>> tedious
>> and it might include using a saw!!<G>
>> any takers ??
>> Bryan
>> sorry to be so longwinded
>> ---- Lance Van Nostrand <patterndude at tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Bryan,
>> I have been anticipating your response but now it seems it won't be  
>> coming
>> soon.  Maybe we can take this offline.  There's no way anyone could
>> interpret my response as being argumentative and I know your are  
>> tough
>> enough to take a few pin pricks without flinching.  Certainly I  
>> have my
>> own
>> experiences and opinions but those are completely set aside.  I  
>> believe
>> there are always at least 10 correct answers to any modeling  
>> question but
>> each answer is right within its own context.
>>
>> In other words, I start from 0-0 and have my trim process advance  
>> from
>> there
>> and usually get very good results.  I think, if I remember  
>> correctly your
>> old KF article and our live discussions, you start from 1/2 degree
>> positive
>> inc in wing and stab and advance from there.  Since I know your  
>> path is
>> different from mine I am trying to learn from you.  this is why I  
>> question
>> and ask for deeper explanation.  Maybe it's just not there.  The  
>> answer
>> might be "I never tested in a wind tunnel, can't explain why it  
>> works, but
>> it does so just try it and enjoy."  But I hate to see you bow out  
>> when
>> someone asks for more details.  that makes Krishlan's comment seem
>> relevant
>> when, knowing how much you help others and contribute to this  
>> sport, it
>> shouldn't be.
>>
>> --Lance
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <shinden1 at cox.net>
>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 5:32 PM
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] the joy of trim
>>
>>
>>> Ok Matt
>>> I accept, your probably right ..
>>>
>>> I will now bow out of the discussion it`s not going anywhere and I`m
>>> waiting my time trying to inform, it seems  all the people I`ve  
>>> helped
>>> accomplish what I`m preaching have quit the sport or they are  
>>> scared to
>>> write !!
>>> I`ll leave you with this ,
>>> demand of perfection is different by each persons ability and goals,
>>> sometimes we deceive ourselves in thinking we kow it all or
>>> we get caught up in out wording every one and talking nonsense ,,  
>>> then no
>>> one gets anything out of the conversation
>>> and then, you die of a thousand pin pricks<G>
>>> I can remember sharing pos inc setup with Nat on numerous  
>>> occasions and
>>> Nat out worded me and proved me wrong on paper and you know he  
>>> can ,, in
>>> a
>>> Popeye Fried chicken House of all places,
>>> However  I find out years Later he now uses My setup I`m proud <G>
>>> ok ,I`ll stop beating a dead horse I know better than to start this
>>>
>>> carry on
>>> Bryan
>>>
>>> ---- rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:
>>>> Bryan,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I respectfully disagree on the upline, full power issue. The  
>>>> downline is
>>>> a totally different trim situation because the vectors involved are
>>>> different
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> MattK
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>
>>>> From: Nat Penton
>>>>
>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List
>>>>
>>>> Sent: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 7:16 pm
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] the joy of trim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm thinking, I'm thinking     ----- Original Message -----   From:
>>>> shinden1 at cox.net>  To: "NSRCA Mailing List"
>>>> nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us>  Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 1:53  
>>>> PM
>>>> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] the joy of trim      > Matt, I refer  
>>>> back to
>>>> my earlier post  > thrust is not the issue.  > wing inc. will  
>>>> always
>>>> trump thrust,, in power and influence over vertical   > lines.  >  
>>>> thrust
>>>> is a" very fine tune" issue it should not be used to adjust   >  
>>>> tracking
>>>> issues  >  > jump in Nat ,, why do you not need down thrust on your
>>>> design??  > Bryan  > ---- rcmaster199 at aol.com wrote:  >> If the  
>>>> model
>>>> pulls to canopy on a�FULL POWER�vertical upline and you   >>  
>>>> reduce
>>>> downthrust, the problem will worsen. You need to add downthrust    
>>>> >>
>>>> (about 1 degree initially, and more if needed). I would not mess  
>>>> with
>>>> CG,
>>>>>> at least not yet.  >>  >>  >> �  >>  >>  >> Horizontal flight  
>>>>>> places
>>>> quite a load on the wing....the wing must lift   >> the load
>>>> accordingly.
>>>> Vertical flight removes the load therefore whatever   >> trim was  
>>>> found
>>>> in horizontal flight will affect the vertical flight. The   >>  
>>>> simplest
>>>> fix is downthrust addition for the condition Mike references,    
>>>> >> but
>>>> assumes that the model is close to begin with.  >>  >>  >> �   
>>>> >>  >>  >>
>>>> Downline flight (NO POWER) is a totally different trim scenario  
>>>> and may
>>>>>> indeed require wing/stab inc adjustment and CG adjustment.  >>   
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>
>>>> �  >>  >>  >> It should be understood�that it is an iterative  
>>>> process to
>>>> get "perfect"   >> trim.  >>  >>  >> �  >>  >>  >> MattK  >>   
>>>> >>  >>  >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----  >>  >> From: J N
>>>> Hiller  >>  >> To: NSRCA Mailing List  >>  >> Sent: Fri, 7 Mar 2008
>>>> 11:33
>>>> am  >>  >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Questions+more -  
>>>> Rolls  >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The airplane may be flying
>>>> with positive trim. Try reducing the down   >> thrust or move the  
>>>> CG
>>>> back.  >>  >>  >> If it doesnt help put it back.  >>  >>  >> Jim  
>>>> Hiller
>>>>>>>>>> �  >>  >>  >> -----Original Message-----  >>  >> From:
>>>> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org   >>
>>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of  
>>>> Michael
>>>>>> Wickizer  >>  >> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 8:19 AM  >>  >> To:
>>>> NSRCA Mailing List  >>  >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS
>>>> Questions+more - Rolls  >>  >>  >> �  >>  >>  >> Bryan:  >>  >>  
>>>> �  >>
>>>>>>
>>>> I agree that the plane doesn't know which direction it's flying,  
>>>> but
>>>> then
>>>>>> why will a plane fly straight and level then pull to the canopy  
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> uplines?� This has been driving Brett and me crazy for over a  
>>>>>> year.�
>>>>>> Admittedly, it a much shorter drive for me:)  >>  >> �  >>  >>  
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu, 6
>>>> Mar
>>>> 2008 23:13:48 -0500  >>  >> > From: shinden1 at cox.net  >>  >> > To:
>>>> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org  >>  >> > Subject: Re:
>>>> [NSRCA-discussion] YS Questions+more - Rolls  >>  >> >  >>  >> >  
>>>> Chris
>>>> ,,
>>>> the airplane does not know it`s flying horizontal or vertical   
>>>> >>  >> >
>>>> the wings are still lifting whether up or down that s why we can  
>>>> use
>>>>>>
>>>>> the vertical up or down to test this problem ,  >>  >> > Bryan  >>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ---- krishlan fitzsimmons homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:  >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lance,  >>  >> > >  >>  >> > > Just a thought though, if going
>>>> straight up, up straight down, aren't   >> > > the up and down  
>>>> ailerons
>>>> both inducing equal drag, no lift? I've   >> > > often wondered  
>>>> if our
>>>> straight up test is actually a perfect test for   >> > > this. It  
>>>> is for
>>>> our up and down lines, but what about our 45's or   >> > >  
>>>> horizontals
>>>> where we do indeed have lift on the low aileron and drag   >> > >  
>>>> on the
>>>> other? This would create a different condition I'm guessing..    
>>>> >> > >
>>>> Probably small, but still a little different because as I  
>>>> mention,   >>
>>>>>
>>>>> both create drag on the up or downline.. Still, it's the best  
>>>>> test we
>>>>>>>> have I guess..  >>  >> > >  >>  >> > > Chris  >>  >> > >  >>   
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lance Van Nostrand patterndude at tx.rr.com> wrote:  >>  >> > > This
>>>> thread is timely because I've been experimenting with   >> > >
>>>> differential  >>  >> > > recently on a new design that seems to  
>>>> need it.
>>>> Never needed it   >> > > before on a  >>  >> > > pattern plane  
>>>> but now I
>>>> might. My test is to fly very high, point the   >> > > nose  >>   
>>>> >> > >
>>>> directly at the ground and roll pure aileron. Plane should be  
>>>> axial,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but  >>  >> > > remember that axial is along the vertical CG,  
>>>>>> which
>>>> may not be a line   >> > > that  >>  >> > > pierces the wing LE/ 
>>>> TE. You
>>>> need to do it a few times to be sure that   >> > > their  >>  >>  
>>>> > > is
>>>> an axis that everything rotates around and that line is  
>>>> straight.   >> >
>>>>> If it  >>  >> > > wobbles, then we have an issue. Another way to
>>>> determine this is to   >> > > do  >>  >> > > unlimited rolls while
>>>> flying
>>>> straight up. If the airplane   >> > > consistently arcs  >>  >> >  
>>>> > off
>>>> its vertical line, you have a problem.  >>  >> > >  >>  >> > >
>>>> Aerodynamics suggests two contributors. One is that the lowered    
>>>> >> > >
>>>> aileron  >>  >> > > increases the lift of the airfoil and lift  
>>>> creates
>>>> drag so this wing   >> > > may  >>  >> > > pull the plane off  
>>>> axis. the
>>>> other is that the spiral slipstream of   >> > > the prop  >>  >>  
>>>> > > is
>>>> pushing down on the right wing and up on the left so up/right    
>>>> >> > >
>>>> aileron is  >>  >> > > more effective than up/left and down/left  
>>>> is more
>>>> effective than   >> > > down/right.  >>  >> > >  >>  >> > > The  
>>>> overall
>>>> effect for most pattern planes is minimal and usually   >> > >
>>>> ignorable,
>>>>>>>>>> but on IMAC style planes these factors can be significant
>>>> and
>>>> the   >> > > resulting  >>  >> > > differential corrections may  
>>>> need to
>>>> be adjusted with something as   >> > > simple as  >>  >> > > a prop
>>>> change (from 3 blade to 2 for example).  >>  >> > >  >>  >> > > the
>>>> correction of course is to start playing with aileron   >> > >
>>>> differential.  >>  >> > > Given the contributors I've suggested,  
>>>> its not
>>>> a given which way you   >> > > go with  >>  >> > > the  
>>>> differential to
>>>> correct the problem and the answer might not even   >> > > be   
>>>> >>  >> >
>>>>>
>>>> symmetrical.  >>  >> > >  >>  >> > > Note that contributor #1  
>>>> above will
>>>> change if you are flying upright   >> > > or  >>  >> > >  
>>>> inverted, so it
>>>> would seem that a correction for upright flight would   >> > >  
>>>> simply
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> exacerbate inverted flight, but contributor #2 is the same for
>>>> any
>>>>>>>> flight  >>  >> > > mode but is throttle dependent.  >>  >> > >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --Lance  >>  >> > >  >>  >> > > ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: "Koenig, Tom"  >>  >> > > To: "NSRCA Mailing List"  >>   
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 4:45 PM  >>  >> > > Subject: Re:
>>>> [NSRCA-discussion] YS Questions+more - Rolls  >>  >> > >  >>  >>  
>>>> > >  >>
>>>>>>>>> My head is spinning!!! The more I think about this, the more
>>>>>>>>> questions I  >>  >> > > > have.........rather than answers!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the contra rotating prop set up on a
>>>> Voodoo
>>>> X( Nat??) maybe   >> > > > the  >>  >> > > > answer??  >>  >> > >  
>>>> >  >>
>>>>>>>>> I still 'feel', that the best rolls I get are with a 0
>>>> differential   >> > > > set  >>  >> > > > up-BUT- somehow I  
>>>> 'drive' that
>>>> wing to 0 ( or should that be some   >> > > > sort  >>  >> > > > of
>>>> equilibrium??) during the rolls. Certainly in my case, it seems    
>>>> >> > >
>>>>> to be  >>  >> > > > Pilot dependant!!!  >>  >> > > > I'm  
>>>>> starting to
>>>> think that my rudder control has turned to the  >>  >> > > >  
>>>> proverbial
>>>> trying to micro analyse what's happening!  >>  >> > > >  >>  >> >  
>>>> > >
>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----  >>  >> > > >
>>>> From:
>>>> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org  >>  >> > > >
>>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of   
>>>> >>  >> >
>>>>>> shinden1 at cox.net  >>  >> > > > Sent: Friday, 7 March 2008 9:15 AM
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List  >>  >> > > > Subject: Re:
>>>> [NSRCA-discussion] YS Questions+more - Rolls  >>  >> > > >  >>   
>>>> >> > > >
>>>> what happens on a 4piont?  >>  >> > > > Bryan  >>  >> > > > ----  
>>>> Del
>>>> Rykert wrote:  >>  >> > > >> The general consensus has been that  
>>>> the
>>>> faster moving molecules   >> > > >> over  >>  >> > > > the top  
>>>> surface
>>>> don't require as big as a deflection as the aileron   >> > > >  
>>>> that  >>
>>>>>>>>> deflects towards the bottom of the plane. What one tries to
>>>> achieve   >> > > > is  >>  >> > > > the plane tracks as purely  
>>>> straight
>>>> on a string as possible while   >> > > > one  >>  >> > > > rolls  
>>>> both
>>>> directions without introducing any yaw.  >>  >> > > >>  >>  >> >  
>>>> > >>
>>>> Del
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----  >>  >> > >
>>>>>>
>>>> From:  >>  >> > > >> To: "NSRCA Mailing List"  >>  >> > > >> Sent:
>>>> Thursday, March 06, 2008 2:49 PM  >>  >> > > >> Subject: Re:
>>>> [NSRCA-discussion] YS Questions+more - Rolls  >>  >> > > >>  >>   
>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nat and all you other aerodynamicists,  >>  >> > >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought that the rational for "aileron
>>>> differential"
>>>> was that  >>  >> > > > upward deflection causes more drag than  
>>>> downward
>>>> deflection so to  >>  >> > > > equalize drag and prevent yaw with
>>>> aileron
>>>> deflection, aileron  >>  >> > > > differential is needed. It  
>>>> seems that
>>>> you guys are now saying that  >>  >> > > > ain't so. Please  
>>>> elaborate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> George  >>  >> > > >> >  >>  >> > > >>
>>>>> ---- Nat Penton wrote:  >>  >> > > >> >  >>  >> > > >> >
>>>> =============
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO center hinged or top hinged is OK. With top hinge,
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> achieve  >>  >> > > > equal vertical travel of the trailing
>>>> edge requires different   >> > > > angular  >>  >> > > > travel,  
>>>> up vs
>>>> down. The objective is zero aerodynamic differential.  >>  >> > >  
>>>> >> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ron I don't think a fairing would prevent separation
>>>> but,
>>>> how   >> > > >> > are  >>  >> > > > you able to fair the gap  
>>>> using the
>>>> top hinge ? Nat  >>  >> > > >> > ----- Original Message -----   
>>>> >>  >> >
>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: ronlock at comcast.net  >>  >> > > >> > To: NSRCA Mailing  
>>>>>>> List
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 7:20 AM  >>  >> > > >> >
>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Questions+more - Rolls  >>  >>  
>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And while your at it, I'd
>>>> appreciate
>>>> some discussion of the   >> > > >> > impact  >>  >> > > > of the  
>>>> top
>>>> hinge system as seen on Viavat, and Prestige birds -   >> > > >  
>>>> (top  >>
>>>>>>>>> hinged, with fairing that eliminates the gap at deflection)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Ron Lockhart  >>  >> > > >> >  >>
>>>>>>>>>>> -------------- Original message --------------   >>  >> > >
>>>>>>> From: vicenterc at comcast.net  >>  >> > > >> >  >>  >> > > >> >  
>>>>>>> Nat,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you explain why the differential
>>>> should be different for  >>  >> > > > non-center hinged? I  
>>>> understand
>>>> that the mechanical configuration   >> > > > of  >>  >> > > > non- 
>>>> center
>>>> hinged requires differential to obtain same travel in   >> > > >  
>>>> both
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> directions. However, the travel up and down should be close to
>>>>>>>>> equal.  >>  >> > > >> >  >>  >> > > >> > Thanks,  >>  >> > >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --  >>  >> > > >> > Vicente "Vince" Bortone  >>  >> 
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------- Original message --------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Nat Penton"  >>  >> > > >> >  >>  >> > > >> >
>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just something that is peculiar to the Southern
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hemisphere.  >>  >> > > >> >  >>  >> > > >> > Changing wing
>>>> incidence will not help. Unless things are really  >>  >> > > >  
>>>> screwed
>>>> up , at our roll rates, centrifugal forces are too low to  >>  >>  
>>>> > > >
>>>> cause a problem. You want zero differential, aero speaking  
>>>> ( same  >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> up/down if center hinged ).  >>  >> > > >> >  >>  >> > > >> > I
>>>> find the best check is the fast half-roll in the vertical up.   
>>>> >>  >> >
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards Nat  >>  >> > > >> > ----- Original Message -----   >>   
>>>>> >> >
>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Koenig, Tom  >>  >> > > >> > To: NSRCA Mailing List  >>   
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 7:24 PM  >>  >> > > >> >
>>>> Subject:
>>>> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] YS Questions+more  >>  >> > > >> >  >>  >>  
>>>> > > >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Troy!  >>  >> > > >> >  >>  >> > > >> > Thanks
>>>> for
>>>> the info. I thought you would be toiling away on  >>  >> > > >  
>>>> the next
>>>> developmental stage of these engines!!  >>  >> > > >> >  >>  >> >  
>>>> > >> >
>>>> Hopefully soon, I can find the time to get flying again. I am   
>>>> >>  >> >
>>>>>
>>>>> looking forward to running this little beast. I am still a  
>>>>> little  >>
>>>>>>>>> concerned in keeping it quiet though.  >>  >> > > >> >  >>  >>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Four blade props? I have some of the 18.1 x 12 two bladers  >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but I just cant see how I'll shut the thing up with these paint
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> stirrers??  >>  >> > > >> >  >>  >> > > >> > Also-one more
>>>> question to any of you out there in pattern  >>  >> > > > land.   
>>>> >>  >>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have struggled with aileron differential for
>>>> years. I am  >>  >> > > > just not happy with the rolls. I have  
>>>> tried
>>>> various design   >> > > > fixes-but  >>  >> > > > about the only  
>>>> one
>>>> that
>>>> seems to work is to get the wing back to   >> > > > 0-0 (  >>  >>  
>>>> > > >
>>>> which can be achieved by a few ways, design, mix or thumbs)   >>  
>>>> > > >
>>>> Differential  >>  >> > > > itself does not seem to work if the  
>>>> wing is
>>>> POA ( well...it works   >> > > > for  >>  >> > > > half the  
>>>> roll !)  >>
>>>>>>>>>>> Another black magic fix appears to be to run parallel  >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ailerons-but this only 'sorta' seems to fix it. I like the feel
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> equal% chord ailerons however.  >>  >> > > >> >  >>  >> >
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am frustrated with it-I like my planes to roll as if they  >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> had a string up its ...........well you know!  >>  >> > > >> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> OK-any 'secrets' I need to know??? Very good elevator work
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes it ( hence my 0-0 comment)  >>  >> > > >> >  >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tom  >>  >> > > >> >  >>  >> > > >> >  >>  >> > > >>
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----  >>  >> > > >> >  >>  >> > > >> >  >>  >> > > >> >
>>>> _______________________________________________  >>  >> > > >> >
>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list  >>  >> > > >> >
>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org  >>  >> > > >> >
>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion  >>  >>  
>>>> > > >>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----------  >>  >> > > >> >  >>  >> > > >> >  >>  >> >
>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________  >>  >> > > >> >
>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list  >>  >> > > >> >
>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org  >>  >> > > >> >
>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion  >>  >>  
>>>> > > >>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________  >>  >> > > >> >
>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list  >>  >> > > >> >
>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org  >>  >> > > >> >
>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion  >>  >>  
>>>> > > >>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________  >>  >> > > >
>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list  >>  >> > > >
>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org  >>  >> > > >
>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion  >>  >>  
>>>> > > >
>>>> _______________________________________________  >>  >> > > >
>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list  >>  >> > > >
>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org  >>  >> > > >
>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion  >>  >>  
>>>> > >  >>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________  >>  >> > >
>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list  >>  >> > >
>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org  >>  >> > >
>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion  >>  >>  
>>>> > >  >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris  >>  >> > >  >>  >> > >  >>  >> >
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.  >>  >> >
>>>> _______________________________________________  >>  >> >
>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list  >>  >> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion  >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing   >> list  NSRCA- 
>>>> discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>>
>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion  >>  >
>>>> _______________________________________________  > NSRCA-discussion
>>>> mailing list  > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org  >
>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion  >
>>>> _______________________________________________  NSRCA-discussion
>>>> mailing
>>>> list  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list