ARF Flite Streak balance point.

Look, I may have missed it, but my recollection is that when the ARF Flite Streaks began hitting dealer shelves there was indignant huffing and puffing about all manner of things Top Flite had "gotten wrong, how could they be so stupid, they are callous beasts, blah, blah, blah." And one of the things they had supposedly hosed was the balance point.

Having never owned a Flite Streak, I had no idea as to who was right. But a couple weeks ago a new friend whom I had helped with advice on his first Smoothie sent along some nice mementos in thanks, among them a real-deal set of Flite Streak plans from a kit. And sure enough, GMA specified a balance point exactly 1 5/8" back from the leading edge, as measured on the plans and exactly the balance point I am using on my ARF FSs.

The problem, of course, is that the plans are only fifty percenters.

So. Top Flite used information from none other than George Aldrich in attempting to get their new ARF correct as to balance.

Yet I remember them getting severely beaten around the head and shoulders for this.

Were you guys criticizing GMA or Top Flite or both? Would you dare have criticized GMA? If so, did you? And when did this take place?

When it was discovered what had transpired and why, I do not recall reading any apologies.

I have also noted quite a number of other features of the FS were faithfully reproduced in the ARF version. Some of which have also been mugged thoroughly and repeatedly.

Just asking...

LAST EDITED ON Mar-10-04 AT 08:26 AM (CDT)
 
The first several runs had it at 3 1/2" or so from the LE (I had read somewhere {here?} that this had been fixed). It was from Jim Thomerson, a more gentle giant of a stunt pilot I haven't met, from whom the most indignant messages appeared about the bad instructions.

David Johnson is a recent retread who has joined the Bee Tree Soccer Field Fliers this winter and is having a great time. At our suggestion, he picked up an ARF Streak and an LA 25. He has had it up a couple of times, but needs to dewarp it (and I need to do the same, again, hoping it stays this time, to one I have). It was "all over the sky" at first, and then I saw about two ounces of stick-on lead weights under the stab.

The instructions on the one he bought (from Tower) were still the original, erroneous ones, and he added weight to match their CG point instructions. He peeled off two or three out of the four half-once pieces after I advised him it had been their mistake, and it started flying much better.

.

Kiwi

One of my flying buddies has there cg right without the muffler on his la25, but with the muffler it is quit a bit forward and flys very stable to the point where I'm thinkin of taken my tougne off and putting the stock muffler on. But both of ours had the erroneous cg on it.

Not to worry though as we both fly RC and are very familiar with the little problems that can appear on ARF's. We just verified and went on down the road. I'm glad they've fixed that problem and put a larger tank in the Nobler.

Great airplanes, a manufacturer that is willing to recognize problems and rectify them and a great lineage altogether.

Can't wait to see the offerins from Brodak.

Well, I certainly don't want to upset a giant, even a gentle one. But it does seem to me as if Great Planes/Top Flite was most unfairly beaten up on this site, to the point where I just stopped taking the indignant ones seriously.

Let's look at this from a different perspective: Great Planes reviews the ARF market, supply seems to be outstripping demand. So they do what any good company does when dealing with products in a category which has matured. They start poking around the margins, looking for untapped demand they can fulfill.

Further, let's say the decision has been made to produce both the Flite Streak and Nobler in ARF form. They've got the rights to both via purchase of Top Flite years ago, have complete specs on both Aldrich-designed models, know well how very popular they were for many years.

But they also know the hobby, even CL Stunt, has changed since these designs were fresh off GMA's drafting table. What to do? Improve them? Leave them alone?

So some intrepid GP employee comes on this site with polling questions: Should we update the Flite Streak and Nobler? Should we produce these designs exactly as kitted by Top Flite?

There is absolutely no question in my mind that well in excess of 70% of respondents would go for the latter, given the chance would make some pointed comments as to the folly of changing designs which have worked so well, for so long, for so many CL modelers. As in, "Well, duh? You really need to ask the question?!"

And yet that is pretty much what GP did, replicating the Flite Streak and Nobler as designed. Unbushed leadouts, rearward balance point on the FS and all.

So it causes me wonder why all the flak got thrown at GP. And how few have been--as in none--the retractions of what in retrospect much be regarded as really foolish statements.

I don't remember seeing allot of GP bashing, what I remember is heated discussions between those against the whole ARF concept and those that thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Those that found fault still said they were a great value. I love my Nobler, it gives me something to fly in less than ideal conditions and I don't care if I ding it. Last weekend I landed up wind in a gale and smushed the cowl, next flight I managed to land down wind but just before it stopped rolling the wind blew it over on it's back. Did I care heck no, I had a ball, smeared some epoxy on the cowl and it's ready for the next 20+ MPH day. If this had been my Legacy I would have been crying....

I'm more into facticity than indignation, I hope. What I had to say was based on examination of various of George's copies of his original plans. All have the large Flite Streak balance point at the rear of the leading edge spar. I've seen one copy which had had the CG shown at the main spar, as it is shown it the TopFlite kit. This CG had been mostly erased, and there was a note "wrong" in George's handwriting, and the CG repositioned at the rear of the main spar. I have George's proof copies of the Brodak plans for the Jr. Flite Streak and the large Flite Streak, and the CG is as shown in George's original plans. The Jr Flite Streak CG is shown about half way to the main spar. My Brodak Jr. Flite Streak, which many of you have seen fly, balances 3/8 forward of the plan CG and flew to suit me. I have a copy of George's plan for the Baby Flite Streak, and the CG is again shown at the rear of the leading edge spar.

Having said all that, I am sure George would have wanted you to balance your Flite Streak such that it flys to suit you. I would also say that I am one of the many who seriously miss George.

>I'm more into facticity than indignation, I hope. What I
>had to say was based on examination of various of George's
>copies of his original plans. All have the large Flite
>Streak balance point at the rear of the leading edge spar.
>I've seen one copy which had had the CG shown at the main
>spar, as it is shown it the TopFlite kit. This CG had been
>mostly erased, and there was a note "wrong" in George's
>handwriting, and the CG repositioned at the rear of the main
>spar. I have George's proof copies of the Brodak plans for
>the Jr. Flite Streak and the large Flite Streak, and the CG
>is as shown in George's original plans. The Jr Flite Streak
>CG is shown about half way to the main spar. My Brodak Jr.
>Flite Streak, which many of you have seen fly, balances 3/8
>forward of the plan CG and flew to suit me. I have a copy
>of George's plan for the Baby Flite Streak, and the CG is
>again shown at the rear of the leading edge spar.
>
>Having said all that, I am sure George would have wanted you
>to balance your Flite Streak such that it flys to suit you.
>I would also say that I am one of the many who seriously
>miss George.
>
>Jim

I'd like to validate your last paragraph, Jim. Argument over a
published C.G. position should be relative to that particular document.
A CG positioning is mearly a trim adjustment. The CG position
does depend on the comfort level of the flyer, and the intended
purpose of the trimmed model. I'm very comfortable with the FS's
CG located as far back as possible...just before it starts to hunt.
However that is a really stupid trim for Stunt flying! I also enjoy
flying the F.S. with a CG located way forward of that for Stunt
practice or even Sport Flying, it points easier and has much more
line tension at the slower speeds...
Tony