Thread: Discussion Xplorer Mk. II
View Single Post
Old May 01, 2012, 10:26 AM
webbsolution is offline
Find More Posts by webbsolution
Win=span\massXpractice+lu ck
webbsolution's Avatar
Joined Jul 2007
3,696 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Jolly View Post
Also seen at Dupnitsa, My good friend and top competitior Primoz Risnor and his 3.8 X-2 showing his attachment of a trip on the top surface. Primoz is one of the test pilots for NAN and is one on the best of their group of flyers. By the way the word I heard on the new version is not exactly as I had been informed earlier.
The new version is not fin behind Supra-Prestige style fuselage, but something very different. New version will be a Rudder-Fin/ Stab-Elevator tail group that reportedly uses X-2 Fuselage and a single screw to attach entire tail group to fuselage. Word has it that they are still experimenting with the ratio of Elevator -Stab. By the way for those of you interested the first X2 wing was delivered to Benedikt Feigl the Friday before the start of the Worldchamps in France. We noticed that several of the top flyers were flying Explorers that were better able to handle the wind last season, when we examined these these models, they had counter sink head flat blade screws instead of caps. The X-2 is showing potential but definitely does not have the same hang as the Explorer.
This is a good report LJ. The same spar system has been in place for over a year now being pounded hard by the best pilots Nan can supply. Thats pretty good for those of us getting the X 2 in NA.

I am finding that the new wing as you stated does handle the wind much better and when you need to just get it to hang you can experiment with a larger area of camber input compared to the old X. This is obviously becuase of the lack of camber in the "clean section" set into the wing.

The other wing just hung by nature but if you tried to improve it I always found camber inputs to be overkill.

What I found last weekend was that the 3.5 X2 properly cambered in a no lift section could be tuned for the same float or very close to at least. I had the same low camber setup from the old X on my new one and found I could easily grab the full 2 mm - so I could likey get more in there and will give it a go this week.

Its impossible to tell without a side by side comparison and even at that ...thumbs involved etc pretty tough. The pilot load shifts with all design changes and this one is a very easy to adjust shift.

I noticed that my stock elevator step on my ATX SD-10 might be a little extreme for the elevator - going to turn it down a step and see if I can get a happier setup there.

Interesting note on the new tail group - news to me. Nothing is ever constent in this sport though so its not suprising since so many have changed the tail group to reduce weight. It would sure make transporting a 4.0 easier! Of course I already build a new shipping box for mine The larger rudder might make the 3.8 variant easier to turn. Thats a distinct difference between the 2 spans (3.5 and 3.8) the 3.8 takes a little more tuning to get a nice tracking solution. Maybe this will be the ticket to improve this. To prove my point I tried the 3.8 wing on the 4.0 fuse and really liked the extra authority - there might be some down sides but that experience has shown me that a larger fin might be a nice option.

Its hard to imagine how much lighter these models will be without a bell crank in the tail and the extra goop etc. At 1690 gr for a full strength solution the 3.5 signals everything in the sky. I imagine the SL variants may be mid to low 50's.
webbsolution is offline Find More Posts by webbsolution
Reply With Quote