Cybertom

Jack1933,
I am not contacting you. You are posting in a thread I started.

You can change your forum settings so that when this thread is updated that you do not receive any notifications. You need to unsubscribe from this thread. If you do not know how to change this setting the forum moderator can help you. If you do not now how to contact the moderator I would be happy to do so.

Dhenry

Where can you order one odf these kits?

chasrb

Lets all remember that this is hobby, an expensive one granted, but still a hobby.

We are here to learn and share.

Cybertom

Flair Models Limited went through a reorganization. Here is the link to their website:

[link=http://www.flairmodels.co.uk/]Flair Models Limited[/link]

I'm sure that there are many kits still out there. Lots of guys buy these things with the good intent to build but often loose interest over time. If you ask around I bet somebody will be willing to sell theirs. Apparently there are some of these kits still on the shelves at Hobby Shops in the UK.

jack1933

My Feedback: (2)

Tom Am i to understand that you own this thread, and can select who may respond, and who may not? I really dont think this is the way r.c. universe intended these forums to proceed. As for you telling me to unscribe to the forum, this is certainly not the intent of the forum and r. c. universe, I dont think. Just because I dont want to listen to your banter about a subject you have a lot to learn about, does not mean that I will quit responding to the other civil modelers, who would like to share ideas. The word contact is exactly what you are doing when You respond directly to me in a thread. Shame on you for being such a bully. May I direct you to the info about rcu policies just above these pesponses. I have only stated the facts as i know them on this forum, trying to help those with open minds, to solve a trim problem. I feel hurt and disapointed that a fellow modeler would take such a negative attitude, while trying to maybe learn something.

geoardsog5

My Feedback: (31)

Greetings Stearman nuts, Reference wing incidence dilemma.
Well, I went over to the aerodynamics forum and surfed it for a while - nobody there seems to agree on anything either, although I will pose the question. Maybe our best chance of resolving the issue is to keep plugging away on this thread. At least we are talking Stearmans here. Jack, don't get so upset when we disagree with you on the published wing incidence of the full scale Stearman.With 40 years of experience as an aviation professional, I fully realize that god only knows what the mom & pop Ag. operators of america did to modify the rigging and stall characteristics of the Stearman to suit their purposes. Arguing about the wing incidence of a full scale Stearman probably has little bearing on our search for the optimum wing & tail incidence for a RC scale aircraft. I'm going to conduct some flight testing to see if I can come to some conclusions at least to satisfy my own curiosity. Once again, be patient, keep the inputs positive and maybe we will all learn something.

ElectRick

My Feedback: (2)

As an interested spectator to this wonderful thread, I feel that I have to inject my two cents worth here.

Jack, I honestly believe you are misconstruing Tom's words concerning the thread and about unsubscribing. First off, Tom started the thread, but he does not 'own' it, per se, nor has he stated so. I believe I can say on his behalf that everyone is more than welcome to participate and share information. His point in mentioning unsubscribing was merely to assist you in not getting further automatic notifications from the RCU server about additional posts added here. You had requested that he not reply to you further, and that's the only easy way for you not to receive notification that he had. I didn't see it as any sort of invitation to 'get lost' so to speak, in any way.

Second, I don't see the decalage and incidence discussion as anything more than just that--a discussion. You have told us what works for you, and that's great. It's hard to refute what works in practical application. Tom and others have posted what official Stearman publications have for settings, which is also hard to refute, since they are official manuals published by the manufacturer.

This is not to imply that either you or the manuals are wrong. It is to point out that there is more than one acceptable incidence setup, depending on intended purpose and desired flight characteristics. Each performs a bit differently. Since the Stearman was designed as a primary trainer, I can see the wisdom of rigging it to stall and drop the nose rather abruptly, to teach stall recovery to students. I can also see the wisdom in setting it up to stall gently, and not carry elevator trim, as it is assumed that most of us already know about stall recovery and don't need the unnecessary practice with our models. We just want better flying planes that suit our own flying style.

Both of you are correct, but just for different reasons. That's really all there is to it. I hope we can all continue to share information here without the discussion getting personal. I know I am enjoying reading ALL the information being presented here, from everybody.

Rick

jack1933

My Feedback: (2)

Hello Geoardsog Thanks for the input. My only intention was to be positive about the many years of experence Ive had with model airplanes, not full scale. The original Stearman rigging drawings, from boeing, circa 1928-30 called for + 4 deg. in the bottom wing and +3 deg. in the top wing. Actually this has no bearing on a model airplane, except to be a guide to set up our models. Im not getting upset when disagreed with, if only someone with any experence will post solid, tried and true info on the subject will we gain knowledge, and be able to have a good flying plane. As I said many times on this forum, Just trying to help anyone that does not want to have down trim in their elevator. Dont see why this is a bad thing. There is only 1 person that I have had any negative input from, and that person has invited me to stop posting on "his" forum. Well it boils down to this. I will not post any more threads on the forum. Hope you Stearman lovers have great fun with your planes. Regards to all Jack

Cybertom

ElectRick,

Thanks for your input I couldn't agree more. We have had a great run with this thread since 2003. Lets everyone redouble our efforts to keep the personal stuff out and focus on Stearman. On to business at hand...

I posted a detailed question about incidence and decalage to the "Brain trust" in the Aerodynamics forum. They are starting to post responses. Once they feel they have put this matter to rest I will post a summary of the answers here for everyone to read or you are welcome to read their original responses in their entirety in the Aerodynamics Forum.

Cybertom

Decalage Incidence Update,

Well the Aerodynamics Brain Trust posted some replies to the incidence / decalage questions I posed. They may feel that they have answered it to their satisfaction because the thread I started has now moved onto unrelated topics. I will give it another week and then summarize their responses here.

jack1933

My Feedback: (2)

Hello Rick To answer your item about the positive top wing incedence relative to the bottom wing, Have been over this question with a restorer of many Stearmans, he also sent me the correct rigging manual from Boeing, circa 1927-30, it calls for + 3 degrees in the top wing and +4 degrees in the bottom wing. Did not post it here, whats the use, chas has this info and ill be glad to send it to you, just send me your email address in a private message. If the milatary had set the incedence per the 1944-45 milatary rigging manual, which is not the manufactures info, and a student had stalled the plane just after takeoff he would have chrashed, with the cg being shifted aft, this is just logical, and was told to me by the restorer. If you are reading the " brain trust" forum you will see that the fellows that are actually flying model bipes agree that the top wing should be negative to the bottom wing. This pretty well puts this question to rest, I hope, why not build a bipe of some kind and experiment with the incedence yourself.

Cybertom

Results from the Aerodynamics Forum so far:

1. "When in doubt follow full scale" +1 decalage-Pimmnz
2. "Most biplanes have" -1 decalage-Bax
3. -1.5 decalage-Rodney
4. +2 decalage-Ed Moorman
5. -1.5 decalage-Herb Brown

geoardsog5

My Feedback: (31)

Gosh, Cybertom, To think I paid all that good money years ago to learn aerobatics in a full scale Stearman. Little did I realize at the time that I was flying it in an "unscale manner"

Cybertom

Geoardsog5,

I cleaned up my last post #637 because you must have taken something the wrong way if I am reading this right.

To clear things up I wasn’t saying that Stearman can't fly acrobatics. I was referring to this quote from the Aerodynamics Forum:

Unless someone else here has also had Stearman aerobatic training you are the most qualified to determine if a model Stearman is flying in a scale fashion or has been modified to exceed what is typically expected of full scale. So the question is if we change the incidence in the manner that Jack recommended does it still fly like a Stearman? How do we measure that?

Did I clear things up?

geoardsog5

My Feedback: (31)

Cybertom - Anyone who is interested in learning some factual information about Stearmans should obtain a copy of "Wings of Stearman" written by Peter M. Bowers. Flying Books International 1401 KIngs Wood Rd. Eagan, Mn. 55122. For those who don"t know, Bowers is a reknowned aviation writer and historian. Note in chap. 5 that reference is made to modifications required by the military to make the stall characteristics less docile.I really don't think we are going see a full blown NACA wind tunnel test report complete with mathamatical formulas posted to document the decalage possibilities in this thread or the Aerodynamics thread. It may be that the only way to settle this controversy is for everyone to rig their bipes as they see fit, go out, fly and see what happens. If the results are unsatisfactory, small incremental changes can be made without turning the aircraft into an uncontrollable beast.We have some opinions from very knowledgeable modelers based on real life experiences. In light of the lack of hard technical data, I am going to go with that as guidance for my rigging.

Cybertom

Geoardsog5,

So far we have lots of opinions and that's about it. Don't you want to know why a Stearman or any other airplane needs the specific amount of incidence it has and how to figure that out? Isn't that what we all have been asking for? Do you think that question has been adequately answered in any way? Could we design the correct amount of incidence into an new airplane with what has been written here? I rest my case.

PS,
Full Scale Gloster Gladiator incidence settings:
Upper Wing +2.5
Lower Wing +2.5

2.5-2.5=0 degrees decalage

waldo

Hi Tom, I just rechecked the data on the Brian Taylor Gladiator. Firewall/tailplane, 0 deg.
Top wing +2 deg, Lower wing 0 deg. Are designers trying to enhance handling characterstics of models by altering prototype angles. Is pitch stability enhanced for instance by using positive decalage. Can anyone comment on the difference in trim required before and after Flair changed the tail setting. Flair also suggested using some downthrust on the motor if larger engines were used. Any thoughts?

Cybertom

I bought "Stearman A Pictorial History" when I started my project back in 2003. See it in the picture. Excellent book, great from a historical perspective but lacks some of the in depth technical data it should have. Good find. I'm going to see if I can find "Wings of Stearman" for sale anywhere. Sounds like an excellent reference.

I own the book "The Gloster Gladiator" by F. K. Mason. It's the best aviation book I own. Not only does he have the complete history of the Gladiator but he has history about aircraft that lead to its creation. There is ton's of technical information showing what modifications were being made in what year as the plane was developed. Time to climb, landing distance with flaps & without flaps, turning radius, it goes on and on. Unfortunately it's hasn’t been in print since the 60's. I own 2-copies which I bought from book collectors. One I actually use as a reference and the other one is in nice condition which I have on the shelf as a collectable.

Cybertom

Waldo,

Excellent questions Waldo. Wish we had the answers. Fortunately I have lots of friends who are engineers and one of them specializes in fluid dynamics which often used to evaluate air flow. Before I nag him with this I hope to find someone who is actually in the industry and an authority on the subject.
As far as this thread goes it's obvious to me that most here aren't as concerned about the "why" as much as I am. They seem to be satisfied with the information at hand (if I am interpreting this right) and that's not a knock against anyone. It's very practical. With some experimentation they should be able to get things working.

I'm planning on designing my own 1/3rd scale Gladiator. I don't know about you but I would expect the designer to know the answers to these questions for me to respect the body of work. I need to do some investigation on this issue, but the level of detail I am intrested in will probably be outside the scope of this thread. For me personally I need to know why.

As far as me building Flair Stearman #2, I will make sure that I have 3.5 degrees incidence in the stabilizer as recommended on their website. Since the lower wing has 3.5 degrees built-in not much choice there. As far as the upper wing its dependant on what I find out. The good thing is all you have to do is drill another set of holes in the aluminum cabanes, make another set of struts, and redo the rigging. Guys should be able to try just about any upper wing configuration they want. It will be interesting to see if changing the upper wing incidence creates an imbalance with the stabilizer (which is not adjustable). Instead of down trim they might need to carry up trim.

Factory Recommendation Flair Stearman (3.5 - 3.5 = 0 degrees decalage)
Upper Wing=+3.5 degrees
Lower Wing=+3.5 degrees
Stabilizer=+3.5 degrees

I'm guessing some of the guys are going to try this (1.5 - 3.5 = -2 degrees decalage)
Upper Wing=+1.5
Lower Wing=+3.5
Stabilizer=+3.5

PS,
I used a "much larger engine" in my Stearman. 3 degrees down and 3 degrees to the right works out great. Remember that if you measure the actual angle of the surface you created it turns out to be around 4.25 degrees. It took me a while to wrap my head around that one.

geoardsog5

My Feedback: (31)

Cybertom, Don't be so rigid in your demand for hard technical data to accept the views of others. Have you ever heard of the concept of demonstrated ability? It is quite prevalent in the civil aviation business.Basically, it says that if you can demonstrate a practical knowledge and successfully execute the various aeronautical tasks required of the rating or special priviledges you are requesting, that request will be acknowledged and approved by the regulatory powers that apply. If we carry this concept over to model aviation, and I realize there is no regulatory agency involved, the opinions and accomplishments of guys like Bill Baxter and Jack Strickland carry a lot of weight. I consider it foolhardy to discount their opinions due to a lack of hard technical data. They have essentially been there and done that.
Once again, the answer to this argument is to fly, adjust as necessary , then fly again. Do whatever it takes to engineer wing incidence adjustability into your aircraft, otherwise you will have to settle for whatever you get off of the building board and if you don't get it right, you will be stuck with a poor flyer that you can't do anything about.

Cybertom

Why do you care what my criteria is for accepting advice from others? I have been very successful because my reasoning has served me extremely well. I don't shoot for mediocrity I'm shooting for excellence. If I am setting the bar to high for you get out of the way for those who can.

If you want to accept the advice that has been presented here that it your right, but don't try to tell me how I should think or that I'm being foolish when I don't want to accept a mediocre answer. What are your credentials that entitle you to do that to anyone?

This thread was a good thing for a long time with lots of good people sharing information. I will miss all of the good people who made this thread a positive influence in my life for many years. Unfortunately it's lost its focus and all good things seem to come to an end.

This thread no longer fulfills the purpose of my original intent, nor does it currently represent anything that I want to be associated with.

PS,
The verbal parasites that have been feeding off the ability and creativity of others have taken over this thread. Good people of the earth Run For Your Lives!!!

geoardsog5

My Feedback: (31)

Greetings, cybertom. Good grief, your last post has left me speechless.

ElectRick

My Feedback: (2)

So much for hoping things wouldn't get personal. It's a shame, too, since this was a great thread. I'm going to miss it.

Rick

waldo

I thought your use of 3deg of down and right thrust was interesting, now we have some forces acting at different angles to produce a good state of trim. If we can tolerate an unscale thrustline surely we can accept a wing incidence which is proven to work even though not prototypical.
I think the inspiration provided by the various contributers to this thread even though we may not all agree on everything, has been of great help in researching the Flair Stearman build. I've got some great ideas from the generous contributors to the thread and hope that this will continue as various builds progress.

Marcol

Hi guys, Been reading all the posts of late and my personal opinion is that things are getting a little heavy.
Come on fellas lighten up and enjoy flying those Stearmans.

As for changing the way that the Flair Stearman is set up, I would leave it well alone.
The reason is this:- About a couple of months or so ago my friend Ken asked me to fly his Stearman. We did all our preflight checks and everything was fine.

So I lined her up on the runway and opened the throttle, a slight correction with the rudder and a squeeze of elevator and she was off. However after about 50ft altitude something was not right, it did not respond to elevator. I found that if I opened the throttle it would climb and if I shut the throttle it would descend.

I managed to fly a complete circuit without no elevator control using just the throttle for pitch control. The landing was rather hard as the flare out was non existant. But the model survived with just a broken propellor, bent undercarriage leg and a damaged cylinder on the false radial engine.

When we investigated we found that the Carbon pushrod end ,which was made of aluminium, had broken and so we had no elevator control at all. The carbon pushrod was used in favour of the wood one in the kit.

You have to ask yourself how many models would have flow and landed without any elevator , but the Stearman did. This is a great testament to a well thought out model and I for one would be careful about altering anything.


Happy flying

Colin