RE: flaperons and spolerones
[quote]ORIGINAL: Andy_S [quote]ORIGINAL: Top_Gunn [quote]however in the interest of terms..... ''Spoilers'' are used predominantly on sailplanes to reduce lift. [/quote] Yes. But on some planes, one spoiler can be raised while the other isn't, to induce roll. In full-scale... extend above the top of the wing. In RC, typically they refer to ailerons with a flap>mix program
Posted on: 6/14/2013 8:59 AM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11543143

RE: flaperons and spolerones
[quote]however in the interest of terms..... "Spoilers" are used predominantly on sailplanes to reduce lift. [/quote] Yes. But on some planes, one spoiler can be raised while the other isn't, to induce roll. In full-scale aviation, that's called a "spoileron." In RC, people seem to use the term"spoileron" to refer to ailerons that can both be raised at the same time, to reduce lift. So the question is, are we using the same term - "spoileron" - to refer to two very different things, or is there another term for ailerons that can both be raised at once? It's not unheard of to use one term to refer to different things, and since nobody has offered anything different, maybe that's what's going on here.
Posted on: 6/14/2013 5:16 AM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11542930

RE: flaperons and spolerones
Ken, I agree with what you say. One of the OP's questions was what spoilerons are. The only answer he got was ailerons that can both be raised at the same time, to reduce lift. I've always thought they are something else: "spoilers that can be used asymmetrically to achieve the effect of ailerons" (that's Wikipedia's definition), so I asked if there's a different name for ailerons that can both be raised at once. This is a question about the names of airplane parts, not aerodynamics, and it seems to me to be quite appropriate for a beginner's forum. Indeed, it's the same question the OP asked: "What are spoilerons?" I'm not trying to get into an argument with anyone; just looking for information.
Posted on: 6/13/2013 4:56 AM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11542014

RE: flaperons and spolerones
I think the new guy got what he needs to know in posts 4 and 6.
Posted on: 6/12/2013 11:40 AM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11541299

RE: flaperons and spolerones
[quote]Read my post agine. That is exactly what I said and I was also indicating the use of mid cord spoilers to reduce lift. The whole point of my post which you seemed to have missed was to separate the quite major differences between mid cord spoilers and trailing edge spoilerons. Sorry for responding to your question. John[/quote] I'm unclear on what I said that seems to have made you angry. I asked whether there is a term other than "spoilerons" for the kind of thing this thread seems to be about: ailerons that can both be raised at once. To me, "spoilerons" are something different: spoilers (mid span on some planes, near the tips on others) that are raised one at a time for roll control. Your reply said that the spoilers on the P-61 were like those on gliders, which isn't accurate. I guess that's what threw me off. Sorry if I misread your reply, but it really didn't try to answer my question.
Posted on: 6/12/2013 11:04 AM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11541259

RE: flaperons and spolerones
would go up and the other would remain flush with the top of the wing. The P-61 also had very small
Posted on: 6/12/2013 8:29 AM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11541104

RE: flaperons and spolerones
A question about terminology: I've always used "spoilerons" for spoilers that can work independently (i.e. one wing at a time), as a substitute (or enhancement) for ailerons, as on the P-61. That kind of spoileron is used for roll control, not dumping lift. Here, people seem to be using it to refer to ailerons that can be set so both go up at the same time, letting the ailerons act as spoilers. Is there another term for this last thing, or are we stuck with using "spoileron" to mean two very different things? (On the merits of the OP's question, I agree with everyone else: beginners have no business using either. The most common beginner landing mistake is coming in too high, then diving to get down to the field. To be sure, without more information we can only guess about what the problem is here.)
Posted on: 6/12/2013 5:31 AM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "Beginners"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11540934

RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz
[quote]ORIGINAL: JohnnyS Beechcraft XA-38 Grizzly? [/quote] That's it! Probably would have been a terrific plane, but they needed the engines for B-29s. You're up.
Posted on: 5/27/2013 10:45 AM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11524500

RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz
Name the plane. 1. Ground attack. 2. Two engines. 3. Piston engines. 4. Only prototypes built. 5. Although the prototypes performed as well as or even better than expected, the order was cancelled. One reason was that the engines were used in another aircraft that was considered more important.
Posted on: 5/27/2013 8:15 AM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11524351

RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz
Name the plane. 1. Ground attack. 2. Two engines. 3. Piston engines. 4. Only prototypes built.
Posted on: 5/26/2013 5:52 AM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11523204

RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz
Not A-10. Name the plane. 1. Ground attack. 2. Two engines. 3. Piston engines.
Posted on: 5/25/2013 1:35 PM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11522638

RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz
Name the plane. 1. Ground attack. 2. Two engines.
Posted on: 5/25/2013 12:14 PM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11522576

RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz
OK, I´ll get something together this afternoon. Flying this morning; good weather at last!
Posted on: 5/25/2013 5:08 AM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11522275

RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz
Yak UT-1?
Posted on: 5/24/2013 2:16 PM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "RC Warbirds and Warplanes"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11521772

RE: Futaba 6ex 2.4g buddy lead problems
Have you enabled the trainer function in the master transmitter? (P. 15 of the manual. Why they make you go through all this to get the trainer function to work is a mystery.)
Posted on: 9/16/2012 5:41 AM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11229850

RE: landing bounce
[quote] If I test his plane and can land it without bouncing, then we will know the problem is his technique. If I bounce it, then we will look at CG, landing gear placement, and maybe going to the "low bounce" tires sold by Dubro or Sullivan. [/quote] Yes, that will tell us a lot. Probably shouldn't have been speculating in advance. Let us know how it turns out.
Posted on: 9/14/2012 12:43 PM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11228559

RE: landing bounce
[quote]As jester mentioned and I forgot to describe, his landing are of the bounce type. His plane will usually bounce back up into the air 2 or 3 times before staying on the ground. It sort of looks like his gear has springs on them. This may suggest he is touching down with too much airspeed but it doesn't look like the plane is going that fast. [/quote] Airspeed won't make you bounce, it's descending too fast that will do it. If the problem isn't CG/gear placement, it could be that he's trying to fight the plane's tendency to float by giving it down elevator at the last minute. Doing that just a little will get you a bounce, and it's hard for beginners to resist the urge. (Doing it a lot will get you a busted prop or worse.)
Posted on: 9/14/2012 10:40 AM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11228399

RE: landing bounce
[quote]ORIGINAL: Mr Cox You are descending to fast while still have enough speed to be airborne. You need to flair and level out just above the ground, the plane will come down when the airspeed slows down enough. [/quote] Right. The 4-stars land just fine if you do it right. I tell my students to never do anything to try to force a plane to land. Line it up, slow it down, sure, but don't make it land: it will do that all by itself.
Posted on: 9/13/2012 2:12 PM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "Aerodynamics"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11227568

RE: Sig Dope/Paint thinner
That's the reason I use lacquer thinner for cleaning, too. I also use it to clean airbrushes and my HVLP gun. The only thing is, after using it on an airbrush, etc., you need to clean off the residue. I just squirt some distilled water through it. Not saying this is necessarily the best way, but it works OK. For brushes, I just use it straight. Turpentine or other ordinary paint thinners aren't useful for anything other than the paints they were designed for, which doesn't include dope.
Posted on: 9/11/2012 5:03 AM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11224811

RE: Sig Dope/Paint thinner
I use lacquer thinner to clean brushes. Haven't used anything except the Sig thinner for thinning, though. What problem do you have with it?
Posted on: 9/10/2012 6:01 PM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11224377

RE: Who else has failed on their first build?
[quote]ORIGINAL: jkpape Over weight & tail heavy is not good, even if it's just a little. [/quote] Right, but (depending somewhat on the model) overweight may not hurt much. Tail heavy always hurts. Add weight to the nose, even though this will make it heavier. And make sure your throws, especially elevator, are within specs.
Posted on: 9/5/2012 5:56 PM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11218865

RE: How many wing bolts?
with the wing on top or low-wing planes flying inverted are a different matter, to be sure.
Posted on: 9/5/2012 10:14 AM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11218361

RE: Guillows planes ?
When built well, Guillows kits are spectacular, especially when left uncovered. They are meant mostly as display models, though I've seen a couple converted to electric RC. Building one that looks good takes a lot of skill.
Posted on: 8/30/2012 4:12 PM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11211987

RE: Sig 4 Star tank problem
I've built a couple of 4-stars and a Venture 60 (Bruce Tharpe's improvement on the 4-star 60). I always make a hatch for the tank. It's rare to never have to get at the tank for anything, and adding a hatch is simple.
Posted on: 8/25/2012 9:19 AM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11205514

RE: 2 flyers, 1 AMA membership?
[quote]ORIGINAL: drube [quote]ORIGINAL: ggraham500 I am not an attorney, but this sounds a bit complicated because yes, your AMA membership is also insurance, but in reality the insurance is secondary to your home insurance. [/quote] I don't fly planes at home so why would the AMA coverage be secondary to my home insurance? Doesn't make sense to me. [/quote] Your homeowner's insurance covers liability for a lot of things you do outside your home, including hobbies such as flying RC planes. As to why the AMA's insurance is secondary, the answer is that the policy you bought says so. If you don't like it, you can look for a different policy from another seller. You may not find one, though. But why would you care, anyway? If the AMA insurance weren't secondary, it would cost more and your total coverage would be the same. So you would be worse off.
Posted on: 8/13/2012 3:08 PM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "AMA Discussions"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11192076

RE: chipmuck
[quote]ORIGINAL: cfircav8r The definition of torque: ''Something that produces or tends to produce torsion or rotation; the moment of a force or system of forces tending to cause rotation.'' They are all ''torque effects'' and they all effect our aircraft to a certain degree. As said before every plane battles each to varying degrees. Without using sophisticated computer modeling or old school wind tunnel testing we will not have any hard data for you. We have to do it the old fashioned way. Try different fixes and test each one in turn, and since each plane is different we can only offer up what can be causing it and possible fixes, but I will tell you that I have 30+ years of model airplane experience and 19+ years, most of which was is as an instructor, of full scale experience, and when I fly a model just like a full scale, low and behold, it responds just like a full scale., For any of us to say, without actually being there, that one specific effect is the culprit and therefore one specific fix is the remedy is just not realistic. He has heard the various effects and each of their roles in the equation and now he needs to decide which fixes he will look into making and if they work for him or not. Speed you have contradicted yourself and proven my point. You have said yourself it takes you upwards of 50 hrs of adjustments and testing to get it right for each airplane, and yet you can say, without knowing how his plane is set-up and how he actually fly's it, that right thrust [i]is[/i] the fix. It is one of many things that alone or combined may be the issue. I would agree it is one of the most common issues, but without seeing the plane and flying it myself I know I can't say with any real certainty what will or wont fix it. Landing gear, thrust line, vertical stabilizer canted to one side, trims set way off, tail wheel alignment, etc... any one, or any combination, of these can be the culprit and they should all be checked in turn. He may find that many adjustments need to be made and will have a far better flying plane by the end. [/quote] Excellent post, but I'd take issue with one point. The OP never complained about anything except having to use right rudder on takeoff. For many planes, that's normal, and when that's the case there is no fix; trying to get one would just risk fouling up other things. I've never flown a Chipmunk, but people who have say it's one of those planes. Interesting discussions of aerodynamics, though. You're right in saying that none of us can know for sure without seeing his plane. My comment is just meant to add "maybe nothing" to the list of the things that could be wrong with his plane. I've seen a lot of guys spend a lot of time trying to fix nonexistent problems.
Posted on: 8/2/2012 7:24 AM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11178340

RE: chipmuck
[quote]ORIGINAL: VCScott rye. Very normal, had two of these and they were both the same. I don't think engine orientation matters much. Nice Chippy by the way. [/quote] That nails it. The OP asked whether right rudder on takeoff with a Chipmunk is normal, and the answer is yes. How we got from that to two pages is a puzzle.
Posted on: 7/31/2012 5:14 AM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11175675

RE: (A Epoxy Cosmetic Question) Is there anyway to still resolve this?
A soldering iron would work, too. A lot more heat than a covering or trim iron, but as the job would go much faster, it probably wouldn't soften any more of the underlying glue. But SeamusG is right: especially since the epoxy seems to be mostly or all on top of the Monokote, try just prying or chipping it off first. Take it from a guy who once set a model on fire soldering with a torch
Posted on: 7/25/2012 11:35 AM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11168790

RE: (A Epoxy Cosmetic Question) Is there anyway to still resolve this?
Heat. But you'll have to re-do the covering. If all the excess you want to remove is on top of the Monokote, it shouldn't be a big job.
Posted on: 7/25/2012 7:20 AM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "Questions and Answers"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11168482

RE: Four Star Forty dihedral
[quote]ORIGINAL: HampdenTech [quote]ORIGINAL: GaryHarris I don't clip the wings either. I like how they ''Float'' in during a landing. And how I can hover it with a good head wind. [/quote] I'm building a Four Star 40 soon (kit arrived the other day). I was going to remove the last wing bay on each wing as suggested by the mods because of the ''float'' factor. I'm flying an Alpha 40 now that does float but I can easily land it on the strip at my club. Since this will be my seond plane should I just leave the wing stock? Bob [/quote] Removing one bay shouldn't give you a problem. The Four Stars are floaters, and it will come down just a little faster on final if you shorten the wing, which will make it easier to land. This should be especially useful if you have a short runway.
Posted on: 7/20/2012 12:55 PM by Author "Top_Gunn" in the forum "Kit Building"
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=11162705