DeviousDave
Posts: 384
Joined: 2/25/2007 From: , MI, USA Status: offline
|
The CG called out on the plans is fairly conservative, but when balancing planes with chords this narrow, you want to make a testing jig, maybe drill a pair of holes in a board and fit sharpened pencils as the points you set the plan down on. The foam wing is a world of difference from the built up version, especially on landing. Still, the plane wants a little power on final. Nothing major, it just helps to control the decent-reynolds numbers on a tiny wing like this aren't too good. Stalls are a non-event, and you really have to screw up to make one snap roll. Speaking of snaprolls and stalls, the new Rivets/ThunderChicken is even better than the MicroShark family of models. John had snaproll problems with the design when he first test flew it and shelved it until a few weeks ago. I didn't get to see the original flights, but they were done with the GWS fan motor on 6 cells. I saw it sitting on his shelf and cajoles him into putting a proper motor and battery in it and giving it a go again. It's a really zippy plane, I wrung it out as best I could-if there was a snaproll tendency I couldn't find it. It turns harder than I want in a racer (think: chained up Dog, Mailman), and with it pointed into the wind it comes down like an elevator with the stick pulled back all the way. Just a little wing wiggling to correct. If it does the same on a calm day I'm going to puch to get rid of some of the washout, lord knows why-it's a smokin' little airplane. Wonder how much faster it will go with a foam wing like the YellowJacket? The underhanded toss is no-fool with the Medusa setup. Not enough prop to worry about torque, TONS of thrust for such a little plane!
|