Re: flying like Bill Gowen
Bill,
Thanks-That is a clear explanation & I had never thought of it that way. I too was taught to have the wing parallel to the MS. Now my next question is, What do you perceive as the advantage of your trim setup over the "traditional" setup?
Thanks,
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: William Gowen <wdgowen_at_gmail.com>
To: Indoor_Construction <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Aug 11, 2012 9:03 pm
Subject: Re: [Indoor_Construction] flying like Bill Gowen
Gary
It's very similar to what I said about the canted MS. Say you've arrived at what you think is an ideal cruise trim regardless of the MS angle. Then hold the model out so that you're looking at the side view and imagine that the wing, stab and fuse are 3 unconnected parts and that you want to rotate the fuse from a nose up position to a horizontal position. To accomplish that you have to increase the positive incidence in the wing and decrease the negative incidence in the stab so that the decalage (the angular difference between the two) stays the same.
When I first started flying I was taught to keep the wing parallel to the MS and use negative incidence in the stab to trim the model. Now I start out with the stab parallel to the motorstick and use positive incidence in the wing to trim the model. After the model is flying okay there are things that can cause this to shift. My F1L's almost always need to be more nose up to launch successfully. My LPP needs to be a little nose-up and my F1M and my A6 don't care - they fly the same regardless of the MS angle.
Mark has pointed out several times that I'm flying with downthrust compared to what others do. I don't agree. In my way of thinking *they* are flying with upthrust compared to the model's direction of flight and I'm flying with closer to neutral thrust. It may all be BS but the results have been pretty good.
.
Received on Sun Aug 12 2012 - 06:50:32 CEST
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:47 CET