quote:

ORIGINAL: jymster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dash7ATP

John,

Go into the Nick Reeves site in the UK.  He has flat flying wires in three sizes from 1/16 to 1/8 '' and some beautiful forks, at a pretty good price.,  It is all stainless and can be silver soldered. He also sells the silver solder.  I have put a link to his site somewhere way back with a photos of the forks ( I call them clevises) which go on the ends of the flat wires.  I think I bought enough of the wire, more than enough of the fork sets, silver solder and flux, a piece of thin foux leather for the coaming, and had it all shipped to me for under $70.00 US.   I'll post a photos of the forks here if I can locate them.

Joe

They appear to be brass in the photo buit they are silver, and only about 5/8'' long including the lock nut.  One end is adjustable at about 3/16''. 

Joe, I think you mean Mick Reeves - http://www.mickreevesmodels.co.uk/

Yes, Mick has some really useful stuff.

James.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bhall01

Chuck-

Balance – depends on where you want to balance it. Based on the description in the Waco kit’s documentation (nothing shown on the plans), it sounds like they’re saying to balance just in front of, or on, the rear cabane struts. To balance at that point would require about a pound of weight at the tailpost. However, that point seems a bit rearward to me (tailheavy). Based on the ‘old school’ method for figuring the CG of a bipe – well explained in this link   http://www.modelairplanenews.com/blog/2011/04/12/balancing-biplanes/ that point calculates to a CG at about 38%.

 

   I checked at about 30% (using the method in the link) – that’s about 2” in front of the rear cabane mount. Balance just barely tail-down at that point. Compared that point to the CG noted on the Pica plans for both the 1/5^th and 1/6^th scale Wacos – their CG is in about that same relative location. Same with the GP ARF Waco…. And all of those fly fine. So for now, it’s balanced at that point… worst case it’s a little nose heavy (compared to the documented location), so I programmed in a 3^rd flight mode with a little extra up-elevator – just in case.

 

 

WacoNut –

Thanks – I like the panels too! The new “glass panel” Waco’s are fine, but I wanted to model mine more like a 30’s-style Waco well taken care of and still flying today. So the panel design I came up with is kind of a composite of several different older Waco’s I found photos of. Scratch built. Instrument faces came off of Chief Aircraft’s ‘full scale’ side of the business – lots of nice HD photos of available instruments – everything from modern to classic – picked the ones I wanted, reduced to the size needed, and high-resolution printed on photo paper….. sure beats the “old days” of a few years ago when a Xerox was about the only tool we had to work with! The rest is sheet plastic, some plywood, and a bunch of ‘fiddly-bits’ from around the shop. Fun stuff!

 

 

Peter –

No, the tail feathers are not removable. Although I don’t think it would be that hard to make them removable. I did modify the attachment method some, and the means of setting the incidence….. basically I’d add/remove shims to adjust the incidence, but I figured once it’s set and ‘verified in the air’, there really shouldn’t be a need to change it. And instead of using 2 ply ‘retainers’ for the rear of the stab I made up a single laminated retainer the full width of the fuselage at that point…. So make that ‘bolt-on’ instead of glue on, and the stab would be removable. As far as how to get it out from under the fin…. Fin and rudder would also need to be removable, but that wouldn’t be that difficult to do either.

 

 

Dash7ATP –

Vinyl graphics are from Kirby’s Kustom Vinyl - http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/kirbysgraphics/index.html - Been in the business quite a while and is awesome to work with. Pinstripe – yes and no – Kirby does his vinyls in layers, so there were black vinyls to apply first, then the slightly smaller red was applied over the black leaving the ‘pinstripe’. Color ‘bleed-through not a problem as Kirby had a “special Red” that basically has a white underside/base….. still thin enough to pick up some of the Solartex fabric look through the vinyl.

 

   Cowl blisters – not too bad to apply, patience and practice. 14 needed, I ordered 20 to have a few spare to practice with….. not too bad at all once a ‘method’ was established. Graphics I got were $85 – wheel pants, side stripes, cowl blisters (plus spares), N-numbers, Waco logos, plus a few “No Push”, “No Step”, etc…. seemed very reasonable to me. Plus Kirby is great to work with as far as sending a ‘proof’ with all color and dimensions clearly laid out to look at before cutting anything.

 

 

   Guess that’s about it – Thanks guys!

 

Barry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stickbuilder

quote:

ORIGINAL: bhall01

Chuck-

Balance – depends on where you want to balance it. Based on the description in the Waco kit’s documentation (nothing shown on the plans), it sounds like they’re saying to balance just in front of, or on, the rear cabane struts. To balance at that point would require about a pound of weight at the tailpost. However, that point seems a bit rearward to me (tailheavy). Based on the ‘old school’ method for figuring the CG of a bipe – well explained in this link   http://www.modelairplanenews.com/blog/2011/04/12/balancing-biplanes/ that point calculates to a CG at about 38%.

 

   I checked at about 30% (using the method in the link) – that’s about 2” in front of the rear cabane mount. Balance just barely tail-down at that point. Compared that point to the CG noted on the Pica plans for both the 1/5^th and 1/6^th scale Wacos – their CG is in about that same relative location. Same with the GP ARF Waco…. And all of those fly fine. So for now, it’s balanced at that point… worst case it’s a little nose heavy (compared to the documented location), so I programmed in a 3^rd flight mode with a little extra up-elevator – just in case.

 

 

WacoNut –

Thanks – I like the panels too! The new “glass panel” Waco’s are fine, but I wanted to model mine more like a 30’s-style Waco well taken care of and still flying today. So the panel design I came up with is kind of a composite of several different older Waco’s I found photos of. Scratch built. Instrument faces came off of Chief Aircraft’s ‘full scale’ side of the business – lots of nice HD photos of available instruments – everything from modern to classic – picked the ones I wanted, reduced to the size needed, and high-resolution printed on photo paper….. sure beats the “old days” of a few years ago when a Xerox was about the only tool we had to work with! The rest is sheet plastic, some plywood, and a bunch of ‘fiddly-bits’ from around the shop. Fun stuff!

 

 

Peter –

No, the tail feathers are not removable. Although I don’t think it would be that hard to make them removable. I did modify the attachment method some, and the means of setting the incidence….. basically I’d add/remove shims to adjust the incidence, but I figured once it’s set and ‘verified in the air’, there really shouldn’t be a need to change it. And instead of using 2 ply ‘retainers’ for the rear of the stab I made up a single laminated retainer the full width of the fuselage at that point…. So make that ‘bolt-on’ instead of glue on, and the stab would be removable. As far as how to get it out from under the fin…. Fin and rudder would also need to be removable, but that wouldn’t be that difficult to do either.

 

 

Dash7ATP –

Vinyl graphics are from Kirby’s Kustom Vinyl - http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/kirbysgraphics/index.html - Been in the business quite a while and is awesome to work with. Pinstripe – yes and no – Kirby does his vinyls in layers, so there were black vinyls to apply first, then the slightly smaller red was applied over the black leaving the ‘pinstripe’. Color ‘bleed-through not a problem as Kirby had a “special Red” that basically has a white underside/base….. still thin enough to pick up some of the Solartex fabric look through the vinyl.

 

   Cowl blisters – not too bad to apply, patience and practice. 14 needed, I ordered 20 to have a few spare to practice with….. not too bad at all once a ‘method’ was established. Graphics I got were $85 – wheel pants, side stripes, cowl blisters (plus spares), N-numbers, Waco logos, plus a few “No Push”, “No Step”, etc…. seemed very reasonable to me. Plus Kirby is great to work with as far as sending a ‘proof’ with all color and dimensions clearly laid out to look at before cutting anything.

 

 

   Guess that’s about it – Thanks guys!

 

Barry

You might just want to recalculate the center of balance on these bipes. We have and contrary to your statements, the Pica flies dragging its butt if balanced at the point shown on the plan. You have to add in a ton of down trim to level it out. That and it will balloon on landing (just ask Mitch). I have the factory drawings and the factory calls out the balance point at 28% Mean Average Chord. We went through all this several years ago here on this forum. You might want to do some research into it.

Bill, Waco Brother #1

quote:

ORIGINAL: LesUyeda

This has always worked for me on my scratchbuilds, and my Pica.

Les

quote:

ORIGINAL: nine o nine

Hi Sensei, Yes, more stab incidence or down elevator (which no one likes) is most of the answer for horizontal ''stance'' in flight. That said the YMF should cruise in slightly tail high attitude. But the center of balance should also be considered for the type of stability the pilot wants whethrtit be rock solid with enough nose weight setup for a decent landing flair or with rearward for a pitchy aerobatic airplane. All things considered there are always compromises when setting up an aircraft. Mitch

   My Barth kit calls for 0-degrees on the lower wing and a 0 to -2 on the upper wing, recommending the -2-degrees for 'better roll performance'....... I went, again, with my "old school" way of doing things on a forward stagger bipe, with the same airfoil on upper and lower, you want a slight positive incidence on the upper wing.  The idea being that in a stall condition the more positive-incidence upper wing will stall first, resulting in a "not-stalled" lower wing now flying a quite nose-heavy bird.  Nose will pitch down and bring the plane back to a not-stalled condition.  Negative incidence in the upper wing would result in the lower wing stalling first, now the not-stalled upper wing is flying a tail-heavy plane... and the stall condition gets worse..... bad day.

   Read this 'method' in a Pitts book quoting design ideas from Curtis Pitts himself, I believe.  Another method he used to have "0/0" incidence yet have the same functional results was to use different airfoils on the upper and lower wings symmetrical, or "more symmetrical", for the upper wing, semi-symmetrical for the lower wing.

   Whatever.  Bottom line - flown bipes with a slightly positive upper several times, so far it's worked for me.  So my Waco has just over a +1/2-degree in the upper wing.  Also had a Pilot Pitts kit several years ago with the Symmetrical upper, semi-symmetrical lower set at 0/0... flew great.  Went  with what has worked for me in the past.

   As for the CG on mine.... going to stick with the 30% of MAC..... we'll see!

   Good input guys!  Thanks!

Barry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dash7ATP

  ''You might just want to recalculate the center of balance on these bipes. We have and contrary to your statements, the Pica flies dragging its butt if balanced at the point   shown on the plan. You have to add in a ton of down trim to level it out. That and it will balloon on landing (just ask Mitch). I have the factory drawings and the factory calls out the balance point at 28% Mean Average Chord. We went through all this several years ago here on this forum. You might want to do some research into it.

Bill, Waco Brother #1 ''


Hi Bill,

I haven't seen you on here lately.  Keeping a low profile I guess.

I remember seeing the discussions on the CG location and your previous remarks.  Given your comments, just where does that point fall on the 1/5 model when the plane is in a levil attitude?  The LE of the top wing should make a pretty good reference point.

Thanks,

Joe

quote:

ORIGINAL: hopkimf

Guys,

Maybe you can help me understand. What I know for sure is Lift of Wing plus Lift of Tail equals Weight of plane. If you make a side view sketch of plane and show the Wing lift going up and the Tail Lift going up, then the Weight is going down. Everything is in balance. What I don't know is the fore-aft locations of both Wing Lift and Tail Lift. Location of Weight is easy to find. It appears the only case where you would need no Tail Lift is when the Wing Lift vertical line passes right through the Weight (CG). So how do you find the location of the Wing Lift and Tail Lift relative to CG? I sure don't know how, and I'm guessing the Wing Lift is forward of Weight (CG) requiring Tail Lift to balance it out. The earlier notes suggested 2-3 degree positive. That's what I'm going to do on Barth 1/3. But it would be nice to know how to find the locations of Wing and Tail Lift.

Hope this isn't too confusing.

Mike Hopkins Waco Brotherhood # 132