Stuka Stunt Control Line Forum
Archive, 2000–2021 · recovered from the Internet Archive
Forums › Stuka Stunt Main Forum

A (Trivial) Question for Mr. Fancher and/or Mr. Fitzgerald

Stuka Stunt Main Forum · 4 of 4 known posts recovered

Mike_Ferguson · Feb 04, 2002 07:01 AM

#0 source
In a recent thread (I think it was regarding kits), Brett Buck was nice enough to post the evolution of the Trivial Pursuit design from the original "Trivial Pursuit" itself to its most recent "Stargazer" and "Final Edition" iterations. Seeing the changes that have been made over the years, I was wondering if either Ted or David had any recommendations for obvious (or maybe not so obvious) changes/modifications to the "Trivial Pursuit" plans available through PAMPA.

There's a part of me that's curious about this simply for curiosity's sake -- at this point, I think if I took any well-built/well-trimmed version of the Trivial Pursuit design (or the Impact, or GEO-XL, or whatever) and took it to the Nats, my own limited piloting skills would still be enough to easily keep the plane about two days away from Top Five day, if not more. (for now, anyway . . . ) However, I also believe in building the best possible plane possible, so I can better understand when my plane is holding me back, as opposed to when my flying skills are holding my plane back. So while I don't think that I'd be much of a competitive threat to anybody with any version of a Trivial Pursuit, I'd still like to at least know how to build the best version possible.

Thanks in advance -

Mike

RocketCityJim · Feb 04, 2002 03:02 PM

#1 source
Mike,

Don't know where Ted is right now, maybe somewhere around Korea?
In my E-Mails back and forth with Ted regarding exactly this subject, the main modifications he is making to his new version are more side area, a little more flap area and an asymetrical stab to get the C/L of the stab more inline with the Aircraft's CG or the Aircrafts Aerodynamic center, I can't remember which one. At least that's kind of my understanding about the tail. There was some discussion a time back on this. Not too sure of the effects of doing it either way though. Either way might work just as well, but i'm certianly not equipped to discuss the merits of these possibilities scientifically. Anyway, I beleive the ultimate objective is to keep the stab/elevator from inducing it's own roll/yaw moment of inertia on the aircraft. Brett, your the rocket scientist, please elaborate about the motion and inertia stuff for Mike please.

Jim Pollock

Ted Fancher · Feb 04, 2002 09:52 PM

#2 source
Oh boy, Mike. The development of a series of ships like the Trivial Pursuit has spanned a number of years and several different variations. Jim mentioned a couple of the current suggestions under consideration although other than going to full span flaps none of others has yet gotten beyond the "here's what I'm planning to do" stage.

Yes, I think there is merit in investigating the assymetrical stab/elevator for the same reasons we've done so with the wing. The outboard half of the tail is going to develop more lift than the inboard because it is flying ever so slightly faster and lift increases as the square of airspeed. Ergo, its is safe to assume that some modest roll/yaw couple is produced under high lift conditions (of the tail) during rapid maneuvering.

The increased aft side area is a bow in the direction of Brett Buck (and Mr GMA whose Nobler is more or less the original "mold" for flying billboards) and recognition of the fact that his airplane is noticably superior to the T.P. in yaw control and damping. Any new version of the design from my shop will include this modification.

As far as changes from the PAMPA plans are concerned I've become convinced that the flat stab with round leading edge is a bad combination on this design. The original wasn't built that way but at least three versions which were built from the plans by David and myself had consistent pitch oscilation problems which were alleviated by modification of the stab airfoil. There has been a lot of discussion of this in other threads and David wrote a very comprehensive article in an earlier Stunt News dealing with experiments he performed to find the best fix.

My suggestion is that a builder either substitute a smoothly curved conventional airfoil with a comparatively sharp leading edge for the flat stab or, if the stab is already built, to reshape the leadind edge to a very sharp configuration rather that round as shown on the plans.

Finally, the individual who drew the final version of the plans for me did a beautiful job but went a little overboard with the drawing of each individual rib. He drew the individual ribs on his own and I've been informed they don't taper consistently from root to tip in thickness. They will result in a very slight "cup" or concavity in thickness from root to tip.

My original plans showed only a root and tip rib used in conventional fashion to stack shape the complete rib set or--better--to be used to cut a foam wing or make a lost foam building fixture ala Bobby Hunt.

The latest Trivial Pursuit from Flying Cloud Isle is in limbo with the wing complete and the fuse half finished. I'm currently uncertain of whether to complete it with the tuned pipe power train or to build a different fuse proportioned for the greater weight and reduced fuel requirement of a four stroke. Completion will probably not happen until I've made a decision on which way I want to go.

Ted

RocketCityJim · Feb 07, 2002 04:12 PM

#3 source
Ahhh, Ted,

Maybe you should just give up and go the 4S route that everyone else seems to be traveling down! Oh, and, ahem, by the way, how about willing me your PA .61 when you decide you don't need it anymore, please, please, please!

Beggar Jim