Stuka Stunt Main Forum · 14 of 14 known posts recovered
Jim Kraft
Dale Gleason
[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]
"Golf is a good walk spoiled." -Mark Twain
Oh, and I used 3 pieces of heavy copper electrical wire (the core only) as pins to hold the tab. Easily adjustable by bending, but solid enough to stay where it is put.
Larry Renger
think S.M.A.L.L.
Jim Kraft
Hi Jim,
I built my late lamented Brodak Nobler without a tab. However, at the one contest it survived long enough to enter, last years VSC, it grew one during the trimming out process (it wasn't flown until the day before the contest).
In my opinion stunters with this much assymetry are almost destined to need some sort of mechanism to avoid the roll from unequal lift inboard and outboard. The ships of that era were cleverly designed with longer inboard wings (and flaps)which was a good idea -- they just went a little too far.
It is my feeling that the best way to trim one out is to use a fixed tab or "wart" as I termed it years ago. There is nothing in the rules that says you can't trim the airplane to fly as well as you can and, if it rolls in corners, you've got to trim it out.
Making the outboard flap bigger might get some nitpicker's noses out of joint regarding fidelity points as would the best fix, making the difference in span only about 3/4" or so. Just remember, unlike OTS which throws you out for deviations, the classic rules allow you to vary the airplanes within reason and you only get zapped on fidelity points (seldom used, I know, but they're in the rules).
Ted
Don't reverse the flaps - as Ted said, add a wart (in this case, a very large wart!). While you are at it, it might be worthwhile to include either an adjustable rudder (to be turned significantly to the left to correct the excess fin/rudder offset and airfoil) or just make one that's both glued on straight and is airfoiled on both sides.
OTS legality is somewhat in the eye of the beholder (just like everything else in stunt). But you generally are OK with "trim" adjustments, and a wart and adjustable rudder is a trim adjustment. Dissenting opinions to be supplied shortly...
Classic legality - once again with feeling - there is no provision for disqualifying any airplane for any reason, at least in PAMPA rules. You might take a hit on fidelity points, if they are used. Most of the time, they are not used, so no hit possible. Maybe I'll enter VSC next year with the Infinity, er, Nobler - but Billy would probably still beat me!
Brett
Jim Kraft
I got a better idea: Since you are left with the dilemma of knowing which is the right way to build, I say build it right like George did with the inboard (right for him) wing longer than the left. Then bring the leadouts out the left wing because you fly the right way. The plane will be right because you left the left wing right where George put it and the right wing will be left just as per plan which is right as well. Now the outboard flap will be left larger (which is right for trimming purposes) and the left flap will be smaller which is also right.
Am I right in my thinking or is there something I left out?
Leonard Neumann
Jim Kraft
This is a great idea, as long as you can run more than 60 mph.
Brett
Or carry a lot of tip weight!
However, dumb as it may seem, with a few flaws aside, there is merit to it as well. As Ted once rightly pointed out on another thread, the concept of a longer inboard panel is really another effort at putting the weight on the outboard side. The wing, itself, doesn't know where inboard and outboard is. It is just flying along and constantly turning left. If we had a simple thin profile twin boom plane with the booms at the extreme tips extending back to hold the tail plane, how would you know if you had assymetry or not? The big kicker on a normal layout is that the fuselage blocks out a bit of the lifting portion of the wing (and flap), and then we usually taper the flaps, if not the wing itself. Somehow we then choose to locate the tail in what we expect will be the center of lift, which usually isn't.
Now you have been a strong proponent (well, not strong enough to build your next plane this way--yet) of adding assymetry to the tail. In effect, you are suggesting shifting the tail to the left a bit, which could have the same effect as adding area to the outboard flap. Now, in the tongue-in-cheek suggestion that I just proposed, we would have effectively done just that. Additionally, the engine is now inboard a little which would tend to yaw the airplane out. This, I see, is one of the failings of normal assymetry where we have more area inboard and perhaps a tendence of the engine, being somewhat outboard to yaw the airplane in.
And the big problem, always, is the blanking of a portion of the lifting portion of the wing by the fuselage, and, with a longer flap outboard, gives a greater tendency to roll the plane in. (Of course, the stabilizer location would be countering some of this.)
So what would be the result of putting the engine on a pod slightly inboard (half inch or so) the fuselage "normal" or slightly outboard--and we would only need this fuselage from the wing back, no additional nose section. And then offsetting the stab in a half inch or so, pretty much in line with the engine?
Now, the yaw created by the inboard engine could be (and probably would be) totally unproductive, but certainly not as much as angling the thrust line outboard as done on many profiles. The location of the fuselage and stab may need adjustment, but I am thinking there cold be a reasonable something achieved here other than the way we have "always" done it.
OK, this ought to get something going. It is nice to hijack a thread, isn't it?
Leonard Neumann
