While on the subject of handles

Another subject that is often overlooked in handles is the amount of overhang (how far out beyond your hand the point of solid line attachment exists). Too much overhang and too much input needs to be put into the handle to make the plane turn. It is like lifting weights. Too little, however, and the plane will want to turn on its own. Ideally, this needs to be adjustable, and the ideal position appears to be somewhere around just in front of your hand.

The flexible cable that is used in most adjustable handles is not included in the overhang, but this can stiffen the controls and still make it more difficult. Thus the best handle design has no flexible cable but a simple hard point of connection that is still adjustable in spacing. The best design I have seen, which is light, simple, and allows full adjustability is the one Ted Fancher hand made. Now if Ted would just set up a little machine shop in the back of that 747, and put the plane on autopilot while on some of those long jumps, he could be spending his time more profitably making handles for the rest of us. But, that not being the case, we will need to go with what is available.

I would be interested in hearing from others who have found a handle that is fully adjustable in the areas mentioned above that would be available for those who are looking for a handle of similar type.

Len,

I just sort of took parts from two handles and joined the best parts together to form my own hard point connected handle with minimal overhang. Well, really what I did was take the bar from a Morris handle that has four attachment points on each side, it's not adjustable in very small increments, but it has worked O.K., then I put that on a slightly modified Brodak handle so that there was minimal spacing between my fingers and the attachment bar. No cable on the handle, works pretty good and not excessively expensive.

The problem, as I have mentioned, with these is they are not infinitely adjustable. We have made spacing adjustments where as little as 1/16 of an inch is beneficial. I would kind of like to see Tom add that type of feature to his handle. It would cost more, I know, but it would be well worth it. Why have adjustments everywhere else when you can't properly adjust your handle?

Several here have taken the Morris handle and slot out the combination of holes in the aluminum bar. ends up with a pair of 1-3/4 x 1/8 Approx slots. make up two sliders using blind nuts soldered to some small brass pieces kind of like a leadout slider. Two of these ride in the two slots and lock in with socket head cap screws. Lock in a cable section thru the sliders with a center lock as well. Takes a couple hours to put one together but they sure work well for fiddling with spacing, bias, etc.

FWIW

I used one of the Morris handles. Instead of drilling holes (the one's I have are a blank, aluminum plate for the attachment bar), I cut 2 slots with an inset. I made up 2 chunks of steel to fit the insets and drilled and threaded them. put in the eyelets with a torque nut on the back. So, you loosen the torque nut and slide the eyelet up and down till you get it where you want it then tighten up the nut screw on the back. Seems to work great. I thought about using the eyelets to screw in and out to adjust line length, but this will bias the relationship of the line attachment to vertical reference. As Ted will tell you, this is a no-no. Instead, I'm currently using (a pile) of varible length line clips to adjust line length. I don't really like this method much, though. I really liked Dirty Dan Rutherford's method. He drilled mulitple hole down the adjustment bar (1/4" thick) perpendicular to the lines and used varible length pieces of piano wire in an "L" bend with a little slot cut in the end that goes through the bar and a cute, little circle clip to hold them in. Very elegant solution, but it put you back to the problem of finite adjustment of line spacing.

Perhaps you could cut a slot perpendicular to the lines and use my method with small slider blocks and a set screw of some type with a single hole for the varible length, removable piano wire thingys. Hmmm.... Now that's a thought. I may mess with this a bit.

Leonard,
Burning large amounts of fuel can tell how little or how much overhang is needed. Old Time and Classic stunt models with 3” bellcranks really benefit from overhang. Increasing the amount of overhang at the handle can help tame a twitchy model. You could do almost the same thing by adding more nose weight but then your turn rate and glide would suffer. Also, the overhang helps the bottoms in square maneuvers. It has been my experience that the more modern day stunters do not need as much overhang because of the 4” bellcranks and taller horns (slower controls). After reading this post I measured the amount of overhang in my handle that I use on the G-Force and it is about 1” from the front of the handle to the front of the bar. I am not saying 1” is the optimum but that is what I feel comfortable with on G-Force.

How many of you remember the Hunt Handle. It had very long arms that extended out from the handle for about 3 inches. Bob Hunt and Jimmy Casalle used this handle along with 3” bellcranks and they flew bottoms that were AWSOME (and the rest of the pattern as well). The point I am trying to make here is don’t count out the overhang in the handle because it is a very useful trimming tool.

Just measured my Bob Hunt handle and it is more or less 2.5 inches.. Yep still use it and love it to death.. I am still flying 500 sq inch planes with 3 inch bellcranks so this may change when I build that SV-?? or whatever killer piped 60 is in the future...

I just stick with my old EZ-Just Hot Rocks. They are still the best handles I have ever tried "feel" wise, other than the Aldrich "Magnum" which is second.

The handles I use for training kids are 6 in long, with the leads about 3 in . apart. The plane grooves well and the handle gives lots of feedback thru the amount of pull needed to effect control. Also lots of room to guide the student without hitting the lines. MM

>I just stick with my old
>EZ-Just Hot Rocks. They are
>still the best handles I
>have ever tried "feel" wise,
>other than the Aldrich "Magnum"
>which is second.

Ted's grip is a direct copy of a Hot Rock, with solid contact instead of the cable/control input filter. Nothing in the Hot Rock was crooked, or assymetrical, and it fits the hand just right.

>>Ted's grip is a direct copy of a Hot Rock, with solid contact instead of the cable/control input filter. Nothing in the Hot Rock was crooked, or assymetrical, and it fits the hand just right. <<

I've never, ever liked the Hot Rock. Unfortunately, my hand is just a bit too wide to fit the grip so it always seems uncomfortable, especially if the plane pulls a bit. And I've never been able to fly with the grip verticle. The adjustment bar, yes. But the grip, no. I know a lot of very good pilots love this handle, but I'm not one of them. Of course, I'm not a top pilot, either. I tried for a long time to like the Hot Rock.