Thread Tools
This thread is privately moderated by solentlife, who may elect to delete unwanted replies.
Jun 29, 2016, 10:49 AM
Youtube channel : solentlifeuk
solentlife's Avatar
Thread OP
Discussion

Is it better to have a well setup mode or a mediocre ?


There seems to be some argument about setting up a model. My opinion is to have a well set-up model to reduce the possible errors and trim problems that can arise.
But it seems that some are happy with mediocre set-up and using trims / stabilisers to sort it out.

I was brought up on trimmed, balanced, well set-up free flight many years ago. It took a long time to understand why my models were not flying as long or as well as others. But listening to others, learning from them taught me to 'eye' the model, weigh it, balance it ... give it every chance to perform its best. I then started to get much better flights and results.

Today we have Flight Controllers, 6 axis gyros, radios that sing and do the Hokey Cokey for us ... and it seems that old values are being ignored more and more.

I will add one item for thought that may just get people thinking about my viewpoint.

You have that mediocre set-up model and you are flying along. Its trimmed to fly reasonably. An event or incident happens that calls on that model to perform and you to save it. But being mediocre it just fails ... sad.
Taking the little bit extra care on set-up .. balance in longitudinal and transverse, proper thrust lines, incidence, decollage etc. may just have saved that model.

Your choice guys and dolls ... I know what mine is.

Nigel
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Jun 29, 2016, 02:59 PM
Waste Nothing
RickC_RCAV8R's Avatar
Nigel :

As an old guy who has been into the hobby for 45 years now , I always make a habit of doing a thorough setup of ANY model I plan to fly . Once this extra effort is completed , the model DO fly betterr and tend not to screw up nearly as much . Crash dameage and hard handling can make problems creep in but they are easily dealt with .

I know quite a few pilots who try and MIX things out to solve problems . They forgot what they have done when using the same radio for another model and get more frustrated .

The mediocre flyers tend to do the 'hurry up' and get it over with approach . They fly the same way ! They will always remain as mediocre pilots as well due to their habits . They build sloppy and fly the same way .
Jun 30, 2016, 01:00 AM
Registered User
eagle60's Avatar
I generally agree with the point, although my opinion is that an rc model should be slightly nose heavy to achieve a minimum of flight stability, but there are some exceptions : the last tendency on F3A models is to be slightly tail heavy with down elevator compensation in a way that at normal speed in normal or inverted flight the model will always fly straight (it will be neutral); if you have a 3D depron (flat wings and fusolage) it will need to be very tail heavy if you want to perform 3D manuvers. In conclusion setting depend also from which model you have and what you want to do with it. Looking the matter from another point of view I could immagin that mediocre flyers will need a properly set plane to fly good, whilst skilled pilot can fly good also with a mediocre plane setting.
Jun 30, 2016, 01:05 AM
Youtube channel : solentlifeuk
solentlife's Avatar
Thread OP
Its funny that 3D is split into basically two camps.

One that says CoG should not be tail biased

Second that says CoG should be pushed back.

I fly as per CoG in designed position and is usually not pushed back. 3D seems to be fine at that on my models.

My entry asking about quality of setup is basically that I feel a properly setup model gives a better chance of good clean flight than a mediocre one.

Nigel
Jul 01, 2016, 12:56 AM
Registered User
eagle60's Avatar
Do not forget that I did agree with this point.
Regarding 3D my specification was only for depron flat surfaces models ( try to make overing or tork roll with CoG at 1/3 of the cord).
Jul 01, 2016, 01:04 AM
Youtube channel : solentlifeuk
solentlife's Avatar
Thread OP
Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle60
Do not forget that I did agree with this point.
Regarding 3D my specification was only for depron flat surfaces models ( try to make overing or tork roll with CoG at 1/3 of the cord).
No worries and I would be first to say that each comes to own setup - I know many post up about pushing CoG back for 3D, as well as many who don't.

For my style of flying - I like to be able to fly around for a bit before going into any 3D routine, that probably has bearing on my choice.

I will ask this though - (I have depron and EPP profile models) - why would a depron profile model need more aft CoG ? Genuine question - not arguing.

Anyway - glad I am not only one who thinks a properly setup model is better.

Nigel
Jul 01, 2016, 01:22 AM
Registered User
eagle60's Avatar
Thinking back to it maybe you are right : who says that the CoG must be between 1/4 and 1/3 of the cord ? In a normal wing maybe, but we know that there are also some airfoils that want the CoG out of this range. Mayby a flat aifoil needs the CoG to be in the geometric center of the wing, wich is roughly at 50% of the cord, exactly where we use to place it.
Jul 01, 2016, 02:19 AM
Youtube channel : solentlifeuk
solentlife's Avatar
Thread OP
I think in the case of the flat sheet wing - the AoA plays a significant part.

The flat sheet wing needs to attack a greater angle than an aerofoil shaped wing. Would be interesting to know what affect this really has.

I have built flat sheet wings many times and usually set CoG at about 1/3rd aerodynamic area - not chord. That is the difference I think.

Nigel


Quick Reply
Message:
Thread Tools