Airfoil Design

[Murocflyer]

Sparky Paul, or whoever would like to share some advice,

I'm building another plane and am considering using the airfoil BE8356B2 as seen on Profili (I tried to save as a JPEG, but couldn't figure it how to do it). The wingspan will be 50", chord is 6.875", and the model weight will be around 20 ounces or slightly less.

I'm going to design it as a pusher (first attempt) and am wondering if this type of airfoil would even be worth my effort in lieu of the standard Clark Y?

Any advice on this would be greatly appreciated.

Frank

PS When referring to a %MAC, is that really saying % of the wing chord?

[fhhuber506771]

%MAC is the line perpendicular to the centerline of the fuselage where X% of the wing is forward of the line and (100-X)% is behind the line.

MAC = Mean Aerodynamic Chord which is a short way of saying "Average distance from leading edge to trailing edge, adjusted for wing sweep and taper" If there's no sweep and/or taper... %MAC will be the same as %chord at any wing rib. (as in a typical trainer's wing)

Clark Y may be useful in a flying wing as a root airfoil, transitioning as the wing swept and tapered back to a tip airfiol that is symetrical for aerodynamic washout (rather than using reflex)

There's several approaches to getting the flying wing to be reasonably stable... depending on how you want the aircraft to perform some methods might be counterproductive.

Without having Profili... and no information about BE8356B2... I can't say where it would be better or worse.

[Murocflyer]

fhh,

Thanks for the explanation of the %MAC. I thought it as so, but your explanation was very thorough.

I scanned a printout of the airfoil and have attached it.

Do you think this will have any advantages for a 3-Channel plane, top speed maybe 25 MPH? I plan on building this for two reasons; experiment for me and something for my Webelos pack to fly.

Thanks!

Frank

[Ollie]

The good use of this airfoil for FF duration. This high cambered airfoil has a small airspeed range. At a wing loading of ~8 oz. per square foot, it will not be high speed. It is good for a trainer.

Also, a good Clark Y airfoil for trainer with better spar depth and strength and easier to build.

[fhhuber506771]

Not sure why I started thinking of flying wings when you said pusher....

If the Webelos are going to be doing the building... use the Clark Y in preference over the BE8356B2. They'll be more likely to come out with a straight wing.

[Sparky Paul]

What Ollie says..
For your purpose it will do the job.

[BMatthews]

Not sure why I started thinking of flying wings when you said pusher....


It's that darn Zagi influence again.... :D

Muroc, Ollie got it. Using an undercambered airfoil will really slow down the model but I'm not sure that this would be a good option for this case. These very thin airfoils work best at very low wing loadings. And in the free flight world 6 ox/sq ft is considered heavy.

For your 50 inch span at around 20oz AUW something with a bit more thickness would probably suit you better. All else being equal a thicker airfoil can carry more loading than the thin one and has a gentler stall. 10 to 12% offers lots of advantages. Any thicker and you run into drag problems at the slower speeds.

A quick run through Profili turned up a few to look at

Goetingen 176, 239, 496, 500, 501 That sort of gives you a feel for the shapes that I've found to work well.

Or if you can get the weight down to 16 or less oz for your model then stick with the Benedek option. Spruce spars and leading edge sheeting with top and bottom caps webbed together will be strong enough as long as you don't plan on serious aerobatics....

But I also agree that if unpracticed hands are going to be doing this then stick with the ClarkY.

[Murocflyer]

Fellas,

I really appreciate the feedback. I would like to go lighter on my designs/builds, but this one will use a speed 400 motor and it's pretty heavy.

From Bruce's suggestions, I went with the GOE 500. That one was a little thicker and should support the wing loading.

I'll work on a new drawing and post it when I can.

To clarify, I'll be building this plane. The Webelos wil be doing a balsa glider in the fall, then next spring on our kite/rocket/plane day I'll give them a turn at flying it.

Thanks again for the help!

Frank

[Sparky Paul]

45 years ago I had a Wakefield rubber plane, competed in an FAI Team Selection on the East Coast... used a Benedek section, as did another plane built from the same template by another flier.
I recall Woody Blanchard observing mine wallowing thru the air..." I've seen better flying planes, but I've also seen shorter flights.." :)
The thing just wouldn't trim to a good glide, and neither would the other plane.
Taking the aerodynamics to the bare minimum, just about any curve will do, for these low Reynolds number flight areas.
The Clark Y does it as good as any other, for reliable flying. The undercambered styles will enhance the glide, at the expense of speed, being more draggy.
And harder to cover with film. Tissue and dope makes it easy.

[Murocflyer]

Sparky Paul,

Great story. It's great to hear/read tales like yours about flying, model building, and experimenting with different plane & wing designs. Thanks for sharing.

-45 years! That's a lot of experience.

Attached is the GOE 500 airfoil. I sent this to Littlebirdz to find out how much it will cost to get cut.

Thanks again for the help!

Frank

[Murocflyer]

Here's a photo of the two above mentioned airfoils that Dave from Littlebirdz LASER cut for me.

The GOE 500 wing will be built first. For the BE83562 I will to build it as light as possible to keep down the wing loading. -Building light, that's a challenge for me.

Thanks again for the help and advice.

Frank

[fhhuber506771]

To build light you have to start with carefully selected wood, then use just the correct amount of the correct glue.

Others are better at describing the wood selection process...

I find that my planes come out lighter using yellow wood glue (Alphatic resin) than with CA. I also think the yellow glue allows the joint to withstand more shock. I apply too much glue (so some squeezes out when I put the parts together) then after the parts are pinned or clamped in place I wipe the exess off leaving a very small glue fillet. (try wiping off excess CA...)

Where you need epoxy, you will come out lighter using 2 hr epoxy than 30 min or 5 min. The 2 hr is thinner, allowing you to spread it thinner and not have the epoxy hold the parts as far away from each other. Its also easier to scrape excess off. (and you have more time to get the excess off)

You can get carried away with carving "lightening holes" all over the place and still not save as much weight as by proper use of glues on some models. (Lightening holes everywhere you can get away with them does save weight....)

The final place to save weight is in the covering. Econokote is much lighter than Monokote. There are several newer coverings that are even lighter than Econokote. (but I haven't used them) I have covered a model with the colored Reynolds Wrap plastic food wrap. It works for the appx 20 inch span Guillows WWII fighters if you keep the model light. (which means replacing most of the wood)

[Sparky Paul]

Here's a photo of the two above mentioned airfoils that Dave from Littlebirdz LASER cut for me.

The GOE 500 wing will be built first. For the BE83562 I will to build it as light as possible to keep down the wing loading. -Building light, that's a challenge for me.

Thanks again for the help and advice.

Frank
.
No fair using a laser!
You gots to take yer double-edged blue Gillette razor blade, snap off one side, snap a point on one end, and then cut each rib out by hand! And watch the skin on the fingers holding the blade get sliced!
And use Ambroid for the glue.
And Jap Tissue and clear dope for the covering.
That will be a plane to build! :)

[Murocflyer]

.
No fair using a laser!
You gots to take yer double-edged blue Gillette razor blade, snap off one side, snap a point on one end, and then cut each rib out by hand! And watch the skin on the fingers holding the blade get sliced!
And use Ambroid for the glue.
And Jap Tissue and clear dope for the covering.
That will be a plane to build! :)

Sparky Paul,

You know that does sound like so much of a better way, I'm sad to say that I didn't think of that. :D

And to think, all I did was send Dave a jpeg, give him my credit card number, and three days later I had two sets of LASER cut ribs. Hmmm... :)

Frank

PS I can only cut straight lines in sheet balsa, I have little doubt that the quality of my handcut ribs would even be airworthy.

[Murocflyer]

fhh,

Thanks for the tips and advice. I appreciate it. Although, I find myself a little too impatient for anything other than thin CA glue. I know, it's a serious character flaw.

Frank

[Sparky Paul]

You'd be surprised how many little slices of skin that Gillette could take off.. :)
The #11 X-Acto is a vast improvement.. but it can also amputate..
I saw an electric Curtiss Condor some years back with 140 ribs.. all of them cut with that Gillette blade.
Ah, for the good old days... NOT! :D

[BMatthews]

I see that I'm a bit late in getting back to this but I would have suggested a few turbulator spars to help support the covering for a more accurate airfoil. Also I would have suggested allowing for a trailing edge..... :D It would seem that you'll need to pin the ribs together in a stack so that you can trim off the rear portion to fit on a trailing edge. While you're at it I'd suggest about 2 upper surface turbulator spars be cut in as well as a lower surface one at the "top" of the lower surface curve half way between the main spar and the trailing edge. It really helps to hold the covering in place. On the upper side one spar would go between the leading edge and the main upper spar and the second would be behind the lower spar by about the same spacing as the upper to lower spar spacing. So that would put it at the 50% to 55% point. These turbulator spars can be small and light like 1/16 x 3/16 on edge. That provides the support for the covering but are deep enough to have some strength against handling damage.

And finally when you allow for the trailing edge I'd also suggest that you leave the ribs long enough that they can fit in 1/16 deep notches cut into the trailing edge. The increase in glue joint strength this provides on thin trailing edges is nothing short of miraculous.

[Murocflyer]

Bruce,

I bought some trailing edge stock for the -trailing edge, of course. Is that what you were referring to? Also, you are suggesting I notch the edge stock to accept the ribs, thus increasing the bond strength/area. Guess I should have designed that into the ribs.

Will the added spars not make me pay a weight penalty? Again, I should have designed them into the ribs. Oh well, I'll see what I can do with them, and if it doesn't work, then Dave will just have to cut me some more.

Thanks for the advice.

Frank

[BMatthews]

Of course there's a small weight penalty with the added turbulators but this is made up for by the increase in the trueness of the airfoil. Remember that with a very open construction the sag of the covering means that the airfoil between the ribs is often just a shadow of what it should be. There's two ways to avoid this. LOTS of ribs or extra support spars that are just there to support the covering. On a super light free flight it's not as important but on a model with radio gear and electric motor and battery pack you won't be working with a superlight wing loading as is typical of free flight so you need to give the wing a chance to work better. And that's where supporting the covering better comes in.

I suspect that unless you're very lucky you'll find that the typical stock trailing edge stock is far from what is needed by the airfoil to maintain the proper shape. I run into this fact constantly when I'm selecting airfoils and building to the point that I never even consider buying regular trailing edge stock just because it never fits except in very rare circumstances. You're far better off to measure forward from the trailing edge until you find a point that is 1/8 thick or 3/16 thick and whatever the width ends up being cut it from sheet stock and razor plane it down followed by some sanding to shape it.

And yes the notching as you said is just to ensure a good glue joint on the often thin trailing edges. There just is not enough depth typically to get a good joint and the ribs constantly end up snapping the regular butt joint. Even after the covering is on this still happens when the wing is not handled carefully. The notches go a LONG way towards eliminating this problem.

I would say that you may as well use the ribs as they are. If you are planning on sending for some new ones then you can save some weight by altering the main spar setup. Switch to top and bottom flat caps of 1/8 x 1/4 spruce or basswood or even 3/32 x 1/4 spruce or bass if you can find it and the grain is nice and straight. Set them up directly over each other and plan on joining them with a webbing similar to many sailplanes. The result will be very strong and very stiff.

[Murocflyer]

I finally got around to assembling the wings I had the ribs cut for.

I made a hybrid out of the two rib designs. I used the GOE 500 ribs for the center sections and the BE83562 on the wing tips. Wing chord is 7" and the length is 36" in the center and the tips are 9" long each side.

I haven't flown the wing yet. As you can see, a SQuiRT will be used as the test bed.

I'm thinking if it works well, I'll build a fuselage for it. I've got some spare 400 motors and a folding prop. Hmmm maybe a powered glider?

[Sparky Paul]

It will probably be overly sensitive in pitch. The tail moment is short, and the tail area is small.
But it will fly.
The vertical is right at the hairy edge of too small.
If it ground loops on takeoff, make the vertical larger.

[Murocflyer]

It will probably be overly sensitive in pitch. The tail moment is short, and the tail area is small.
But it will fly.
The vertical is right at the hairy edge of too small.
If it ground loops on takeoff, make the vertical larger.

Sparky Paul, I only see that right there! :cool:

Actually, thanks for the pitch warning. The SQuiRT, as you know, was designed for a smaller wing, but this should be interesting. I just hope I don't regret trying this.

I probably will eventually build the rest of the plane for it -if it survives.

Frank

[BMatthews]

Pitch wise it will require a forward CG location due to the small stab and short tail moment. As a result you're not really letting the wing show it's best foot forward.

In reading back through a couple of the posts and seeing the pictures I'm a bit confused at your airfoil work. What is with all the "flatlining" of the ribs? Did you just do that for the first couple so they fit on the fuselage or did you do it for the whole wing?

Also what happened to the turbulator spars? It's all sheeted now.

[Murocflyer]

Pitch wise it will require a forward CG location due to the small stab and short tail moment. As a result you're not really letting the wing show it's best foot forward.

In reading back through a couple of the posts and seeing the pictures I'm a bit confused at your airfoil work. What is with all the "flatlining" of the ribs? Did you just do that for the first couple so they fit on the fuselage or did you do it for the whole wing?

Also what happened to the turbulator spars? It's all sheeted now.

Bruce,

Yes, the flattened ribs on the bottom is where is sits flush with the fuselage. Those were just in the center section 2" of the wing.

I didn't have the ribs notched so I had to figure out a way to secure the trailing edge to the ribs so I used a 1/32" sheet to help hold the T/E on. Does that make sense?

I'll probably have to buid a plane around this wing to have a great flier. Right now I'm betting it will be just OK.

Frank

[fhhuber506771]

Maybe the photos are deceptive...

The turbulators I believe being referenced as missing would be in the forward 1/3 of the airfoil. Looks like sheeted "D tube" now. well placed turbulators can enhance lift:drag in the speed range expected of that design.

the sheet as a support for the TE is OK.. heavier than some other methods you could have chosen. But that model probably has plenty of wing area for the weight. Might matter for durration contests... but I doubt that was why you built it.

[Murocflyer]

Here's an early pic of the wing. No duration contests for me, but I am thinking that a Clark Y design would be better suited for that.

This is for a park flyer -slower the better.

Frank

[fhhuber506771]

What looks like a sheeting pattern in the pics could be just the light on the covering... looks like appx 60 to 70% full sheeted top surface. (rounded corner rectangles of non-sheeted area each rib bay)

Very strong arrangement, appropriate to handle potentially "abusive" handling and/or heavy loads.

What structure choices are best are dependant on how the model will be used... Nothing says you have done anything that is really WRONG building the wing... just inappropriate for some purposes, while very good for others (where this would be wrong... the structure there would not hold up where this is right)

If its light enough to fly the way you want... and strong enough to handle the load you want... its right.

[Murocflyer]

The SQuiRT was definitely not a good platform for this wing. The best I could say for how it flew was "squirrelly." I didn't fly it too long because I felt uncomfortable with it. Under about 1/2 throttle, it wanted to climb at about a 45 degree angle, but at about 1/4 or less it flew fairly level. Turning as guessed wasn't too responsive and it seemed like it wanted to windmill very easily in a cross wind. Most likely because of the small fin and large and high degree wingtips.

I won't try flying this wing again on my SQuiRT. It just didn't fly right. I have lots of sticks and film left, so I'll try to design a proper fuselage and empennage around this wing. I'm leaning towards a glider, but I really like to ROG.

Frank

[Sparky Paul]

A longer fuselage is all it needs.
But as long as you're building...
larger vertical and horizontal won't hurt. :)

[Murocflyer]

A longer fuselage is all it needs.
But as long as you're building...
larger vertical and horizontal won't hurt. :)

So it shall be.

But I know it's not that simple. Every dimension is based on every other. I need to get my books off the shelf and figure this one out.

[Sparky Paul]

Andy Lennon has the basic dimensions for a good flier in his book.
Nothing is cast in concrete though.
My stuff with the Goldberg Mirage and GL wing worked because the Mirage took the GL tail surfaces.. which are "too large" for the Mirage, but that doesn't hurt anything.. and were therefore nicely sized when putting the GL wing on the Mirage fuselage/tail.
The bulkier fuselage of the Mirage carries a camera better than the skinny GL fuselage, with close to the same performance.

[BMatthews]

Go back to the basic span to length relationship and the wing area to stab area to fin area relationship of the original unmodified Squirt. Copy that those ratios with your new wing as the starting point. Build and fly. It should fly amazingly like the original Squirt handling wise but hopefully you can keep the wing loading under control to enhance the slow speed flying side of things.

[Murocflyer]

I'm going to get lazy and "build" the fuselage off the square tubing I have as a spare from my Slow Stick. All the dimensions will be as required based on Mr. Lennon's book, but since I have all the attachment hardware, I can assemble this plane faster and prove or disprove my design.

Frank

[Murocflyer]

Did the number crunching on my new build. Vitals are as follows:

Wing Area 375 sg in
Wing AR 7.76
Wing Loading 6.9 oz/ft based on total weight of 18 ounces
Reynolds number 81,412 at 15 mph

Horizontal location 19.25" from MAC to MAC (wing to Horiz)

Horizontal size = 20% of wing area = 75 sg in
Elevator size = 35% of horiz. = 26.25 sg in

Vertical size = 8% of wing area = 30 sg in
Rudder size = 35% of fin = 10.5 sq in

Engine location = 2 times wing chord = 14" from wing MAC

I guess that sums it up. Time to start building unless somenthing in these numbers are totally way off base.

Frank

[Sparky Paul]

The SS fuselage tube is a good option.
Fuselages just connect everything.
Whatever works is fine.

[fhhuber506771]

Can always build a "better" (fancier?... depends on your idea of what's better) fuselage later... since stuff essentially snaps onto the SS fuse.

[Murocflyer]

This might sound like a dumb question, but I have been pondering this one for a while.

With only a 36" rule and a pencil, how can I ensure an exact perpendicular line?

In other words, without using a square, how can I make sure my vertical line is exactly 90 degrees off my horizontal line with just using my rule?

Thanks!

Frank

[fhhuber506771]

typical sheet of paper corner is ALMOST 90 deg (+/- about 1/4 degree) . Cereal box corner...(not as accurate as the paper but easier to keep in place)

You could go get a cheap (appx $1) set of kid's grade school triangle/ruler/compass/protractor. Its handy to have the 30-60-90 and the 45-90 triangles that are typicaly in these sets.

[Sparky Paul]

This might sound like a dumb question, but I have been pondering this one for a while.

With only a 36" rule and a pencil, how can I ensure an exact perpendicular line?

In other words, without using a square, how can I make sure my vertical line is exactly 90 degrees off my horizontal line with just using my rule?

Thanks!

Frank
.
Lay out your baseline at 36".
Take your rule, and pivot it around one end of the baseline, with your pencil at some distance greater than half the length at the rotating end. All the way around.
Go to the other end of the baseline, and do the same.
Where the two circles cross is exactly 1/2 way along the baseline.
Connect the two crossing points.
It's an old Greek trick. :)

[Murocflyer]

Thanks for the replies.

Yup, the arc method seems to work well. I guess those Greeks really had it going on!

Huber, I have a protractor, just wondering how I could make a 90 degree angle without one.

I have my horizontal and vertical drawn out. No comes the cutting and CAing.

Frank

[fhhuber506771]

The problem with using the ruler/yardstick method... its mighty hard to hold it to give a constant center of rotation... and the pencil tends to slip along the other end... resulting in a not quite circular curve. (I got 1/4 inch deviation in roundness of a 48 inch round tabletop I made in HS trying it that way.. best result after many attempts)

Its just not as accurate as the corner of a sheet of paper.

Use a good grade draftsman's compass... and its good to 1/2 the dia of the "pencil tip" on the compas, which if properly sharpened is a few thousandths of an inch. (accuracy of close to 0.01 deg when constructing a right angle usig a 4 inch radius arc)

[Murocflyer]

I was actually trying to figure how I could ensure a perpendicular line mathematically with just my rule and pencil. I know there must be a way, but didn't want to devote that much thought into it when the arc method, or piece of paper method would do just fine.

Today, prior to these replies, I just squared up my kraft paper on my building board and used my square. At least now I have a few options.

[HELModels]

Anything with a square edge will work, even an old circuit board.

[fhhuber506771]

With just RULER and pencil...

consider the proportions of a 3-4-5 triangle. ;)
http://www.mathopenref.com/triangle345.html

differnce between straight edge and ruler...

[Andrew McGregor]

For drawing ice big arcs... string, a pin, a pencil. Tie the string between pin and pencil...

[fhhuber506771]

unfortunately... most string stretches. When I was doing the table... all string attempted had more stretch error than the error I got with the alternate method.

Later learned a better method of drilling a peg hole part through the bottom of the tabletop and drilling a steel straight edge for the peg and the pencil.

Now... we have Kevlar thread and others with virtually no stretch...

[Sparky Paul]

String?
Why would anyone use string?
Take a piece of wood.
Put a pin at one end.
Put a hole in the wood at what would be the half way point of the line you're using.
Put a pencil in the hole.
Press the pin at one end of the line.
Draw the arc.
Go to the other end of the line.
Repeat.

[fhhuber506771]

Some books do say to try a string + pin + pencil to draw a large circle...

And if you don't need the accurracy appropriae for finding a right angle... or the accuracy desireble in making a round tabletop... it works.

Don't some of the explainations of "trammelling" suggest use of string to aid in measuring the desired equal distances?

[Murocflyer]

Here it is, ready to go. AUW is 19 ounces, 1 ounce more than I wanted, but I can probably make that weight up by changing the battery to a different one.

I strictly followed all recommendations made my Andy Lennon, so this airplane should fly.

Comments are welcome.

[Sparky Paul]

Looks good. Fleshing out the fuselage for real, you'll have a decent airplane.

[Murocflyer]

Thanks Sparky Paul. I sure will if it flies well.


If it doesn't...

[Murocflyer]

Success! It was still a little breezy tonight but the first flight went well.

That is after I fixed that minor problem I had. :o I wasn't getting much thrust. It would roll forward, but didn't have the thrust to take off. I'm sure you know the exact problem. But once that was fixed she took off fine. It's a real floater. I only flew it for a few minutes, so I really didn't get to see much of its "personality." Hopefully there will be no wind in the early AM and I'll get to fly it a little more.

First impression is that I am pleased.

Frank

[Murocflyer]

Here's my next project. Adding ailerons to this wing. Plan is to fly this wing on my SA SQuiRT.

My question is, should I trim down these wing tips or can I leave them as is? The wing center section in length is smaller than the SQuiRT's wing or I would have trimmed them off right away. The wing total length is 60".

Do you see a problem with leaving the wing tips on?

Thanks,

Frank

[Sparky Paul]

Leave them on.
As long as there's no expectation of 3D manuvering :), the ailerons should be OK.

[Murocflyer]

Great, Thanks!

The surgery begins...

[Murocflyer]

...and here it is!

[Sparky Paul]

Those are certainly healthy ailerons! :)

[Murocflyer]

They seem to be to me also, but that's what Andy calls out unless I misinterpreted his dimensions.

[fhhuber506771]

Looks about right to me for ailerons inboard of the polyhedral break. They have to be larger than if the control surfaces were closer to the wingtips. Also a good size for flaps if you later decide to put ailerons in the outboard panels.

If you compare the roll performance with a typical .40 size trainer... expect it to seem sluggish.

[BMatthews]

Muroc, I hate to rain on your parade but I think you're going to find that inboard ailerons are going to be very ineffective. Particularly so with the polyhedral outboard panels. You would have been far better off with ailerons 1/2 as wide out on the tip panels.

Oh well, giver 'er a try but I think you'll find that the rudder alone produces far nicer turns than the ailerons alone.

[Murocflyer]

Muroc, I hate to rain on your parade but I think you're going to find that inboard ailerons are going to be very ineffective. Particularly so with the polyhedral outboard panels. You would have been far better off with ailerons 1/2 as wide out on the tip panels.

Oh well, giver 'er a try but I think you'll find that the rudder alone produces far nicer turns than the ailerons alone.

Bruce,

Sounds like a hurricane. I didn't think the wing tips would support the ailerons as this was a wing I modded to add the ailerons. If it doesn't work well, or at all, I'll build a completely new wing with ailerons in mind and put them in the right postion. Which I probably will anyhow. This is just an experiment as you know by now, I can't leave "well enough" alone. I think it's a character flaw of mine.

Hopefully I won't crash it, as mentioned, I would like to experiment with flaps also since these resemble flaps more than ailerons.

Frank

I'll report on flight quality of course.

[Sparky Paul]

Us guys that "know" it won't work haven't tried it.
I suspect it will work, probably.
And don't forget to couple the rudder to the ailerons.. just to be safe. :)

[fhhuber506771]

Look at the Great Planes Lil' Poke sometime.... It has an option for ailerons done virtually the same way.

They work. Very sluggish roll rate, but acceptable for maintaining roll control. Sure, the LiL Poke has a much lower aspect ratio.... (and the plans have the ailerons proportionally smaller than the ones used by Frank... so his should do somewhat better)

[Murocflyer]

Here it is. His ailerons are WAY too small. :)

[fhhuber506771]

small as they are... they work. (works much better to have the same % chord of the outter panels as the ailerons though... and take out most of the polyhedral... then the little thing is a very pleasant to fly.)

[Murocflyer]

With Ernesto coming through, it will be some time before I'll have a chance to try it out. :(

Frank

[Murocflyer]

Perfect evening to maiden tonight, but woe is me, I was out until dark. Hopefully tomorrow will be calm and I'll try her out.

Frank