Not applicable... removed.

Could someone please confirm the wing cord measurement for me. I am utilizing a Multiplex Minimag/Funman replacement wing, part #M224177 for a build project and the advertised wing area of 345 sq. in. does not match the dimensions of the wing I have. The wing is 39.75" long but the widest wing cord is 7.5".

My build thread is posted here: https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...ld-Flyer-Build

Originally Posted by JohnM

Could someone please confirm the wing cord measurement for me. I am utilizing a Multiplex Minimag/Funman replacement wing, part #M224177 for a build project and the advertised wing area of 345 sq. in. does not match the dimensions of the wing I have. The wing is 39.75" long but the widest wing cord is 7.5".

My build thread is posted here: https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...ld-Flyer-Build

Certainly the cord is 7.5" ... I tried to measure the wing at the widest point and made it 39.5" BUT that didn't take into account the dihedral and the measure was raised from the wing in the middle ... if I had 3 hands and could of pushed it down that may have made up the extra 0.25"

Your 19.875 measurement I think is closer to 19.75 and your outline it looks as though the rear of the wing is wider than the front .... I think the widest point is about 1" from the leading edge rather than at the rear of the wing

Sorry I'm no model builder and the measurements are only done with a tape measure rather than anything more accurate but hope that's of some help.

Great, Thanks for the info Witterings. I am wondering if the 345 sq. in. wing area takes into account the area of the horizontal stabilizer and the bottom of the fuselage. Anyone know if this is standard practice?

Originally Posted by JohnM

Great, Thanks for the info Witterings. I am wondering if the 345 sq. in. wing area takes into account the area of the horizontal stabilizer and the bottom of the fuselage. Anyone know if this is standard practice?

Yes thats how multiplex does it.
No its not standard practice (except for MPX)

Got one with brushless motor, and nav lights, servo's, upgraded wheels, and spektrum Rx for sale. $100 LPU in Marlton, NJ.

Nice deal. Wish I could have gotten it

I have one semi built, with Hitec servos, stock motor, ESC .. $50.00 plus shipping to Lower 48 states only. Could also include 72 Mhz Hitec Tx and Rx for $75.00.. If interested, P.M. me ..

Russ

I am on my second MiniMag, brushless motor, very light - love it. Got it NIB from the RCG classifieds.
Great sound when dragging a wheel along dirt runway.

Mine was flying awfully and I saw my TX had some aileron differential dialed in, I googled minimag aileron differential (which may be where I found it when I re-set up the plane) and there's some reference to it on page 279 but I just found the original instructions and whilst I've only skimmed them I can't see and reference to aileron differential at all.

Has anybody else come across it anywhere / are you using any or just flying it without any??

EDIT: I've just found another part in the manual that says if up aileron is 7mm down should be 3mm so it seems it does need some differential ... I wonder though if I used to fly this on an old basic TX than didn't have that function and if it used to fly better like that .....

Just try it w/o aile diff and use rudder as needed, and see how that goes.
Then dial in aile diff and compare
Then do an aile-rudder mix

Should be able do all 3 of above on one flight battery, easily.

Originally Posted by Zerts

Just try it w/o aile diff and use rudder as needed, and see how that goes.
Then dial in aile diff and compare
Then do an aile-rudder mix

Should be able do all 3 of above on one flight battery, easily.

You're right ... I was thinking I do pretty much this and just try it. I also remembered when I set it up with the non computer radio I did it mechanically by putting the servo arms forward as per instructions.

When I re-did it with the computer radio I just said 3mm is approx 42% of 7mm so set the differential as that on the radio ... maybe the 42% on the radio doesn't quite translate into the same actual differential.

I own a Funman/Minimag that slept some years in the basement after a light pole interaction.

Eventually I repaired the bird and hot glued the nose to motor mount to obtain a rigid motor liaison with adequate right and down thrust.

I was flying her on a DX6 and programmed a new slot on my Jumper T8SG transmitter since I am transferring my planes there due to an Eachine micro warbirds addiction.

That was a good opportunity to question myself about the mixes I had programmed on the DX6 to obtain a nice behaviour with ailerons.

Mainly a throttle to down elevator mix to counteract a slight nose up tendency and a rudder to opposite ailerons mix to cancel the effect of dihedral in turns.

My CG is located between 72 and 80 mm. I find the 67mm quite conservative as per dive test and at 80mm the plane develops no twitchyness. I have reduced a little bit elevator throw to adapt to greater reactivity but that was just fine tuning.

My aim was to mimic the flight of a Cessna or Cub with no dihedral so I could fly three axis without problems.

As explained at length by various contributors the plane flies well RET and I have experienced quite a lot of over-control on roll axis if, after having banked the plane with ailerons, I used rudder to inscribe the nose in the direction of the turn. That is the consequence of dihedral and I did not want to practice surgery on the wings. Alternatively you could ignore rudder to a certain extent by programming a hoping amount of differential on ailerons to slow the internal wing in the turn and reach more or less the same effect.

But when you fly a Cub or a Cessna you have to use rudder in turns so that was not the route to follow. the Minimag is not an EDF jet of sorts and must behave accordingly.

I also noticed an asymmetrical induced roll with harder banking to the right than to the left when using rudder. My plane is not warped and this might be related to thrust line with an 8 inch prop bigger than the original but I also had to cancel this effect.

With good muscle memory no mixing at all is necessary and the plane does not fly fast so there is plenty of time to react but I wanted to obtain smooth and homogeneous response on all axis and let my kids fly the plane from time to time so she would be a good aileron trainer and not just a good plane for a pilot having understood the quirks.

I find that the combination of very low price, sturdiness, bush style wheels and wide flight envelope quite ideal if you own a programmable radio and spend some time to use it.

The end result is that:
- no throttle to elevator mixing is necessary after restoration of a proper thrust line;
- no throttle to rudder mixing is necessary but axed loops need a little left rudder;
- For total cancellation of dihedral (full left/right rudder when cruising with only the tail wagging without coupled roll) I needed 35% left rudder to opposite aileron mix and 38% right rudder to opposite aileron mix).

Interestingly if you mimic a turn on the ground watching for the control surfaces you first dial aileron to bank then you play the rudder/elevator sequence. The rudder aileron mix results in the cancellation of aileron input when rudder is applied which confirms the dihedral was optimised for RET flying.

With more or less 30% expo on all axis and 14/11mm throws on ailerons 11/9mm on left/right rudder and 10mm on elevator the plane flies like a pussycat and reacts with excellent homogeneity to all controls which is quite nice and relaxing.

I had difficulties balancing the motor prop adapter combination. A perfectly balanced prop resulted in vibrations because of imbalance probably on the collet spinner parts. I unbalanced the prop and mounted it with 20° rotations on the collet until I found the sweet spot where all vibrations were cancelled.

This resulted in a noiseless flight which is also relaxing.

Spent this morning practising touch and goes with some lazy figures and could not be more happy.

If there are still some folks flying this plane they might be pleased with these settings.

^ Sounds good. I am on my 3rd, which means I have had 2 MiniMags and am currently flying the Funman. The biggest help to its flight handling was to decrease the wing AoA, the other was to use an 8" prop and a motor of lesser kV than spec to enable faster vertical. (I use larger diameter, but thin and light wheels)

What a great plane, too bad it gets little recognition.

Originally Posted by zerts2

^ Sounds good. I am on my 3rd, which means I have had 2 MiniMags and am currently flying the Funman. The biggest help to its flight handling was to decrease the wing AoA, the other was to use an 8" prop and a motor of lesser kV than spec to enable faster vertical. (I use larger diameter, but thin and light wheels)

What a great plane, too bad it gets little recognition.

When you decrease wing AOA you reduce decalage with the stab. There is another work around. If you down trim the stab you also reduce decalage.

But there are two differences :

Everything else being equal reducing wing AOA will have you fly with the tail somewhat lower (the wing must generate a certain lift which requires a certain angle of attack so if you raise the trailing edge the whole fuselage will be angulated accordingly by lowering the tail) while trimming the stab will comparatively raise the tail. Not a big issue except that lowering the tail you reduce down-thrust while raising the tail you increase down-thrust. So one method might be better than the other considering you need more or less down-thrust.

Another less marked side effect is the fact that when you raise the trailing edge and hence lower the tail of the aircraft you expose to fuselage turbulence a greater section of the tail and reduce rudder authority. Not a problem since rudder is quite effective.

This plane forces you to land cleanly. The wheels are well before the center of gravity so there is no ground loops but this results in landings where the tail is slammed on the ground if vertical speed is significant. Slamming the tail on the ground is not elegant and results in brutal increase of AOA and if you are not close to stall speed the plane will be airborne again then will come back to the ground at quite significant vertical speed and you slam the tail again etc... So I find quite difficult to obtain clean landings and I really need to think twice about the approach. Good lesson every time. I guess that adding a tail wheel mitigates the problem since it rises the tail at ground contact and reduces AOA as well.