<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=US-ASCII http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2873" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>My Dad's theory, backed by limited empirical data, is that the T tail will help those airplanes with a small vertical, and a tall aft fuselage, by directing airflow over the small vertical. CPLR's airplanes do not have a well defined, tall, vertical stab, unlike the Arresti III that Dad tried the T tail on. I've flown his Arresti with and without the T tail and couldn't tell the difference. The CPLR airplane has a tall aft fuselage, short defined vertical, that would almost certainly be blanked out by the canopy in many attitudes. Full scale airplanes have been known to have similar problems. The original BD-5 didn't have a defined vertical. Instead, it relied on a tall aft fuselage. Didn't work, and they had to add a defined vertical stab. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>An extreme example of a tall fuselage and a short vertical is the new BEAM F3A model discussed in the pattern area on RCU. I'd bet a T tail would help it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Jon Lowe</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 5/24/2006 10:25:38 PM Central Daylight Time, Rcmaster199@aol.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Don Lowe discusses a little bit about such devices in the latest MA. One of the photos also shows one of his pattern models retrofitted with the device and I think he stated that in his set-up it wasn't terribly effective. The amount of vertical and horizontal area the little "T tail" adds may be too small for a 2 m pattern model, CPLR notwithstanding. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The concept is a good one tho, and the idea has been around since at least the Wright Bros, although they may not have used the wing intreplanes with that specific purpose in mind. To my knowledge, Nat Penton originally applied the idea on a model more than 20 years ago. I wrote about that and even played with it in my own models a bit. Back then, the schedules we flew were not that demanding and couldn't really take advantage of the concept, but the schedules we fly now certainly will be easier to fly with such appendages on the models.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Now the horizontal surface angled at the correct incidence could possibly be enough to counteract the notorious pitch to landing gear that CPLR designs are infamous for with top rudder application. On the other hand, CPLR is gifted enough pilot to overcome the model deficiency on his own, but hey, if he believes it helps, then it does help him and hurts everyone else flying against him.</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>MattK</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 PTSIZE="10"><BR></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>