Video of my BE2e, a WW1 artillery spotter in flight. It's not easy to fly!
12-01-2016, 10:33 AM
#26
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Measnes, La Creuse, France.
Posts: 2,129
Received 146 Likes
on
123 Posts
What you didn't see in the video was me on the transmitter struggling to control the model! The flight in France, as seen in the summer photographs, was even more of an ordeal and I felt lucky to get the model down in one piece. I must be a better pilot than I think I am!
I must admit to not fully understanding aerodynamics but I once had a Flair Puppeteer, a semi-scale Sopwith Pup, with the c/g in the indicated position on the plan it was similarly unflyable. With some more lead in the nose and the c/g brought forward by 2 cms, it was a delight to fly. The positive angle of attack of the tailplane was a feature of the full-sized BE2e, besides there's no easy way of altering it in the model.
I'm going to try moving the c of g forwards on the BE2 and see what happens. I may even give the model to my pal Roger Aubard to fly. He once finished tenth in the French glider championship and has competed in aerobatic competitions too.
If the model should balance at 1/3 MAC (12.5cms from the leading edge of the top wing,) that means that the balance point should be 4.5cms or one and three quarter inches further forward than its current position. That's 16% of the chord. That should make a difference!
I must admit to not fully understanding aerodynamics but I once had a Flair Puppeteer, a semi-scale Sopwith Pup, with the c/g in the indicated position on the plan it was similarly unflyable. With some more lead in the nose and the c/g brought forward by 2 cms, it was a delight to fly. The positive angle of attack of the tailplane was a feature of the full-sized BE2e, besides there's no easy way of altering it in the model.
I'm going to try moving the c of g forwards on the BE2 and see what happens. I may even give the model to my pal Roger Aubard to fly. He once finished tenth in the French glider championship and has competed in aerobatic competitions too.
If the model should balance at 1/3 MAC (12.5cms from the leading edge of the top wing,) that means that the balance point should be 4.5cms or one and three quarter inches further forward than its current position. That's 16% of the chord. That should make a difference!
Last edited by Telemaster Sales UK; 12-01-2016 at 10:36 AM.
12-01-2016, 04:31 PM
#27
Stachel, thanks for the response, and I'm glad if all that stuff was useful to someone, but one comment you made confused me. If the top wing is 4.5 degrees and you keep the front cabane the same while lowering the trailing edge, won't you make the top incidence even greater and throw it farther out of whack with the bottom wing?
TSUK, getting another experienced pilot sounds like a great idea. True enough, I can only tell so much from a video. I'm surprised by your result with the Flair Puppeteer, since so many have been flown and commented on. But if you added nose weight and that turned it into a better airplane, I can't argue with that. And I'll remember it, since I have a kit stashed away for my RCV 60 SP.
I must say, the CG on the BE2e plans looks rather far aft, especially since the top wing has a much larger span than the bottom. There is nothing sacred about the 1/3 point, but a lot of airplanes do work out about that way. The various 3Vs I checked of the BE2e full scale do not seem to show the incidence difference between top and bottom wing, but who knows how accurate they are? In any case, with all that incidence in the top wing, you have to assume that it is the one doing all the work, so the CG really has to be correct for that wing, not the pair. The bottom wing is essentially a big stab in the wrong place. So I would agree with both of you, that the indicated CG is highly suspect.
Jim
TSUK, getting another experienced pilot sounds like a great idea. True enough, I can only tell so much from a video. I'm surprised by your result with the Flair Puppeteer, since so many have been flown and commented on. But if you added nose weight and that turned it into a better airplane, I can't argue with that. And I'll remember it, since I have a kit stashed away for my RCV 60 SP.
I must say, the CG on the BE2e plans looks rather far aft, especially since the top wing has a much larger span than the bottom. There is nothing sacred about the 1/3 point, but a lot of airplanes do work out about that way. The various 3Vs I checked of the BE2e full scale do not seem to show the incidence difference between top and bottom wing, but who knows how accurate they are? In any case, with all that incidence in the top wing, you have to assume that it is the one doing all the work, so the CG really has to be correct for that wing, not the pair. The bottom wing is essentially a big stab in the wrong place. So I would agree with both of you, that the indicated CG is highly suspect.
Jim
12-01-2016, 08:34 PM
#28
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Measnes, La Creuse, France.
Posts: 2,129
Received 146 Likes
on
123 Posts
I'm surprised by your result with the Flair Puppeteer, since so many have been flown and commented on. But if you added nose weight and that turned it into a better airplane, I can't argue with that. And I'll remember it, since I have a kit stashed away for my RCV 60 SP.
Jim
If you check out the similar thread I started on the British Radio Controlled Models and Electronics website (RCM&E) and scroll down to the post I put up at 15.57 on 29/11/2016 you'll see that two other posters, including Jonathan Harper who produces the Laser engines, had the same problem with the Puppeteer. IIRC the added weight brought the c/g forward from a point 130mm from the leading edge of the top wing as indicated on the plan to 110mm from the leading edge.
The only problem I will have with getting Roger Aubard to fly the model is that he, like most Frenchmen is a Mode 1 pilot, whereas I'm Mode 2. However, I have access to a Mode 1 Spektrum transmitter so we should be able to bind the BE2's receiver to that and use my transmitter as a slave. Incidentally we have three members of the club who are grandfather, son and grandson. The grandfather and grandson are both Mode 1 flyers but the "son" who learned to fly in Switzerland is Mode 2!
A Puppeteer with an RCV SP engine should be interesting. My pal Kit Davidson had a Pupeteer with an RCV 90CD engine in it. It flew it very well. Mine had an HP VT 49 up front.
http://www.modelflying.co.uk/forums/....asp?th=122650
David
Last edited by Telemaster Sales UK; 12-01-2016 at 09:14 PM.
12-02-2016, 12:10 AM
#29
I must admit to not fully understanding aerodynamics but I once had a Flair Puppeteer, a semi-scale Sopwith Pup, with the c/g in the indicated position on the plan it was similarly unflyable. With some more lead in the nose and the c/g brought forward by 2 cms, it was a delight to fly. The positive angle of attack of the tailplane was a feature of the full-sized BE2e, besides there's no easy way of altering it in the model.
This photos shows what "balanced" meant on my Flair Puppeteer which flew beautifully when it was set up like this.
12-02-2016, 05:20 AM
#30
Thanks David, I will note that CG for my plans.
Abu, I have noticed a couple of modelers of these forums make a practice of balancing "nose down" but I certainly don't see it as a "norm" and I don't know of any designers who advocate that or specify it on their plans. I think some people do it because they think of it as being "on the safe side". A balance point is the point where the plane balances. If it's nose down it's not balanced. I like your analogy, "Can you imagine a scientist in a lab "balancing" a pan scale with one side "more down" than the other?" That's exactly why it's a bad idea.
I always calculate a starting CG from wing area, chord, tail arm and stab area. I learned this from reading Gordon Whitehead. It sometimes allows me to make a maiden flight with my CG well aft of the mark on the plan. For 30 years, it has always worked for me.
With bipes I'm less confident in it because the two wings are not doing equal work. However, when I did the calculations for my VK Nieuport I got exactly the same point Vern Krehbiel put on his plans, and the plane flew perfectly there. But for my own Pinkerton bipe I decided the calculated CG was farther back than I liked. However, the plane was not unstable and the calculation got me through the first flight tests.
Bottom line is once your plane is in the air, you just do flight testing to get the CG you like. The plans and the calculations are a starting point to get your components in more or less the right places and get through the maiden without a disaster.
Jim
Abu, I have noticed a couple of modelers of these forums make a practice of balancing "nose down" but I certainly don't see it as a "norm" and I don't know of any designers who advocate that or specify it on their plans. I think some people do it because they think of it as being "on the safe side". A balance point is the point where the plane balances. If it's nose down it's not balanced. I like your analogy, "Can you imagine a scientist in a lab "balancing" a pan scale with one side "more down" than the other?" That's exactly why it's a bad idea.
I always calculate a starting CG from wing area, chord, tail arm and stab area. I learned this from reading Gordon Whitehead. It sometimes allows me to make a maiden flight with my CG well aft of the mark on the plan. For 30 years, it has always worked for me.
With bipes I'm less confident in it because the two wings are not doing equal work. However, when I did the calculations for my VK Nieuport I got exactly the same point Vern Krehbiel put on his plans, and the plane flew perfectly there. But for my own Pinkerton bipe I decided the calculated CG was farther back than I liked. However, the plane was not unstable and the calculation got me through the first flight tests.
Bottom line is once your plane is in the air, you just do flight testing to get the CG you like. The plans and the calculations are a starting point to get your components in more or less the right places and get through the maiden without a disaster.
Jim
12-02-2016, 05:57 AM
#31
Jim, I've had some "Mr. Toad's Wild Ride" maiden flights when I've balanced (in that true sense) on the "suggested" balanced point. Nightmare porpoising, unintended loops, and almost uncontrollable landings. So basically I treat "recommended CG point" about the same as "The Pirate's Code" which, is "more like guidelines."
12-02-2016, 06:33 AM
#32
That certainly explains why you balance nose down. I agree that what you describe is exactly what you would expect from a balance point that is too far back.
I only had that experience once, about 30 years ago, with a glider I built from RCM plans. Who knew flying a glider off a high start could be so harrowing? I pulled a quarter out of my pocket and put it in the nose, and all was fine. When I went home I tried a calculation and found that the formula gave me exactly the balance point I had gotten with the quarter. The point on the plans was wrong.
I've used the formula ever since, but what I often find is that the balance point on the plans is too conservative. That was especially true of BUSA kits. Using the formula helped me avoid a lot of shifting of battery and servos because I got pretty much what I wanted right from the first flight. I have also had models that simply climbed too much, but those were OK if I just put in down trim or kept the stick held forward. Then I would fix the trim on the ground. Messing with that led me to the conclusion that the stab should have close to the same incidence as the wing.
As I mentioned, I'm not always so successful with bipes, though I've never had your experience with them. It is a big mistake on the part of a designer to put down a balance point that is too far back. The designer should have done careful testing and made a careful note of the final balance point and made sure the plans had it right. If I were to publish my Pinkerton I would note on the plans the balance point that I settled on after flight testing, not the one I calculated.
Jim
I only had that experience once, about 30 years ago, with a glider I built from RCM plans. Who knew flying a glider off a high start could be so harrowing? I pulled a quarter out of my pocket and put it in the nose, and all was fine. When I went home I tried a calculation and found that the formula gave me exactly the balance point I had gotten with the quarter. The point on the plans was wrong.
I've used the formula ever since, but what I often find is that the balance point on the plans is too conservative. That was especially true of BUSA kits. Using the formula helped me avoid a lot of shifting of battery and servos because I got pretty much what I wanted right from the first flight. I have also had models that simply climbed too much, but those were OK if I just put in down trim or kept the stick held forward. Then I would fix the trim on the ground. Messing with that led me to the conclusion that the stab should have close to the same incidence as the wing.
As I mentioned, I'm not always so successful with bipes, though I've never had your experience with them. It is a big mistake on the part of a designer to put down a balance point that is too far back. The designer should have done careful testing and made a careful note of the final balance point and made sure the plans had it right. If I were to publish my Pinkerton I would note on the plans the balance point that I settled on after flight testing, not the one I calculated.
Jim
12-02-2016, 09:12 AM
#33
Since I keep mentioning calculations and formulas I should tell you what they are.
I was mistaken about getting it from Whitehead, it was actually Bill McCombs book, "Making Scale Model Airplanes Fly" that introduced me to the formulas, and later I found Whitehead's version which turned out to be algebraically the same as McCombs. I've seen similar things elsewhere, but can't remember where.
McCombs first calculates a "tail volume" which he describes as a "good index of how effective the horizontal tail is". It is...
Tail Area/Wing Area X Tail Arm/Wing Avg. Chord.
The tricky part is getting the tail arm. McCombs measures it as the distance from leading edge of the wing at the average wing chord to the leading edge of the stab at the avg stab chord. I have also seen it as the distance from the CG (what you're trying to find in the first place!) to some comparable point on the stab.
Note that what it means is that the more tail area in relation to wing area, the more stabilizing you get, and the longer the tail arm in relation to the wing chord, the more stabilizing you get. Chord is destabilizing because of the shift in center of pressure of the wing with angle of incidence. Broad chord wings are harder to stabilize. Think of the tiny stabs used on sail planes. They get away with it because the wing chord is so narrow.
Then to get a safe starting point for the CG(in %) = 16 + 36(TV)
Now to your BE2e. McCombs gives tables with tail volumes for lots of airplanes, and amazingly, the BE2e is one of them! The value is 0.45. So here we go...
16 + 36(.45) = 32% So there you have it...you should be safe enough for a test flight if the balance point is 32% back from the leading edge of the wing.
But you have two wings staggered. You can average them, remembering that the bottom one is shorter. But are they both lifting the same for their size? Who knows?! If the top one is doing most of the lifting, which it would be with the angles of incidence given, then try the CG at about 32% from the leading edge of the top wing. If you make the angles more equal, then take a guess and move it back a little.
I saw another version that said for RC use: 14 + 28(TV), so that would be more conservative. I do these two versions and use that as my range. I've never had an uncontrollable airplane result from using these.
Anyway, here is the bottom line...the C.G. given on the plans is very far back from the calculated value, just as someone here thought and as David experienced in flight. You would be very safe with the CG at about 1/3 back from the L.E. of the top wing. Then you could try moving it incrementally back, or just leave it alone if you like it.
Jim
I was mistaken about getting it from Whitehead, it was actually Bill McCombs book, "Making Scale Model Airplanes Fly" that introduced me to the formulas, and later I found Whitehead's version which turned out to be algebraically the same as McCombs. I've seen similar things elsewhere, but can't remember where.
McCombs first calculates a "tail volume" which he describes as a "good index of how effective the horizontal tail is". It is...
Tail Area/Wing Area X Tail Arm/Wing Avg. Chord.
The tricky part is getting the tail arm. McCombs measures it as the distance from leading edge of the wing at the average wing chord to the leading edge of the stab at the avg stab chord. I have also seen it as the distance from the CG (what you're trying to find in the first place!) to some comparable point on the stab.
Note that what it means is that the more tail area in relation to wing area, the more stabilizing you get, and the longer the tail arm in relation to the wing chord, the more stabilizing you get. Chord is destabilizing because of the shift in center of pressure of the wing with angle of incidence. Broad chord wings are harder to stabilize. Think of the tiny stabs used on sail planes. They get away with it because the wing chord is so narrow.
Then to get a safe starting point for the CG(in %) = 16 + 36(TV)
Now to your BE2e. McCombs gives tables with tail volumes for lots of airplanes, and amazingly, the BE2e is one of them! The value is 0.45. So here we go...
16 + 36(.45) = 32% So there you have it...you should be safe enough for a test flight if the balance point is 32% back from the leading edge of the wing.
But you have two wings staggered. You can average them, remembering that the bottom one is shorter. But are they both lifting the same for their size? Who knows?! If the top one is doing most of the lifting, which it would be with the angles of incidence given, then try the CG at about 32% from the leading edge of the top wing. If you make the angles more equal, then take a guess and move it back a little.
I saw another version that said for RC use: 14 + 28(TV), so that would be more conservative. I do these two versions and use that as my range. I've never had an uncontrollable airplane result from using these.
Anyway, here is the bottom line...the C.G. given on the plans is very far back from the calculated value, just as someone here thought and as David experienced in flight. You would be very safe with the CG at about 1/3 back from the L.E. of the top wing. Then you could try moving it incrementally back, or just leave it alone if you like it.
Jim
Last edited by buzzard bait; 12-02-2016 at 09:14 AM.
12-02-2016, 10:39 PM
#34
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Measnes, La Creuse, France.
Posts: 2,129
Received 146 Likes
on
123 Posts
I have decided that my OS 70FL is plenty powerful enough for the model even though Roy Scott's original BE2e had an OS 69 GP two stroke engine. I also discovered that if I place my retractable tape measure on top of the engine, the c/g moves forward to the desired point! The tape weighs 330 grammes or about 11.5 ozs. I intend to melt the lead in an old paint kettle and to pour the lead into an old sardine tin. That looks about the right size and shape!
The alternative would be simply to replace the OS with a Thunder Tiger F91S which is about 330 grammes heavier than the OS but I fear that it might over-power the model. The BE2s were not fast aircraft, a fact which led to so many casualties.
The alternative would be simply to replace the OS with a Thunder Tiger F91S which is about 330 grammes heavier than the OS but I fear that it might over-power the model. The BE2s were not fast aircraft, a fact which led to so many casualties.
12-03-2016, 05:00 AM
#35
Good decision! You don't need more power, just nose weight.
The only thing I would do differently is to make that lead hunk a little smaller and use a couple of other pieces to bring the weight up to your 330 grams. That way if it turns out you don't need (or like) so much you can remove a little.
It is such a beautiful model in flight, I hope the nose weight makes it enjoyable to fly.
Jim
The only thing I would do differently is to make that lead hunk a little smaller and use a couple of other pieces to bring the weight up to your 330 grams. That way if it turns out you don't need (or like) so much you can remove a little.
It is such a beautiful model in flight, I hope the nose weight makes it enjoyable to fly.
Jim
12-04-2016, 05:48 PM
#36
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Clearwater, FL
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stachel, thanks for the response, and I'm glad if all that stuff was useful to someone, but one comment you made confused me. If the top wing is 4.5 degrees and you keep the front cabane the same while lowering the trailing edge, won't you make the top incidence even greater and throw it farther out of whack with the bottom wing? Jim
12-09-2016, 07:08 PM
#37
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Clearwater, FL
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may have made a major error in my construction. The wire I'm using for the bottom wing stubs is 1/8" wire, but the plans call out for 8 SWG, which turns out the closest equivalent is 5/32". The wire is all installed and epoxied and bent as necessary, so removing it will be next to impossible. Could I get by with the 1/8" wire?
My only excuse is the laser cutting in the center section ribs was for 1/8" wire...I should have questioned this.
My only excuse is the laser cutting in the center section ribs was for 1/8" wire...I should have questioned this.
12-10-2016, 08:06 AM
#39
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Clearwater, FL
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks David!
12-15-2016, 11:35 PM
#40
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Measnes, La Creuse, France.
Posts: 2,129
Received 146 Likes
on
123 Posts
I've decided that the problem lies with a c.g too far to the rear. I need to put a lot of lead under the engine. The c/g is close to the rear cabane struts as shown on the plan, however, several enthusiasts with a greater knowledge of aerodynamics have suggested that it should be several centimetres further forward, i.e, above the front cockpit. I had a light lunch of sardines yesterday. I looked at the empty tin and thought that it was just the right size and shape to go under the engine! I cleaned it out, put it on the small ring and melted over 500 grammes (18 ozs) of lead into it. I then fitted it to the model with elastic bands to see what effect it would have. The c/g is now above the centre of the front cockpit. I have to work out how to attach the lead permanently. I'll report back.
12-16-2016, 06:26 AM
#41
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Measnes, La Creuse, France.
Posts: 2,129
Received 146 Likes
on
123 Posts
Here is a picture of the lead which I melted into a sardine tin. You can still see the shape of it quite easily! The kit has an under-cowling made of glass-fibre. I secured the lead to the under-cowling with silicon and a single bolt before fitting the assembly back into place using slightly larger wood-screws. This way if I need to add or remove lead it will be a fairly simple job. I will glass it permanently into place once I'm satisfied with things.
The second picture show the model inverted on the workbench. The forward piece of black Solartrim is at 12.5cms from the upper wing leading edge, the suggested balance point. At this point the model balances slightly nose-down. The other pieces of black trim show the c/g range as shown on the plan.
I'm not sure whether to test-fly the model myself or to give it to the best pilot in the club. This will involve binding a Mode 1 transmitter to the model but it's an idea.
The second picture show the model inverted on the workbench. The forward piece of black Solartrim is at 12.5cms from the upper wing leading edge, the suggested balance point. At this point the model balances slightly nose-down. The other pieces of black trim show the c/g range as shown on the plan.
I'm not sure whether to test-fly the model myself or to give it to the best pilot in the club. This will involve binding a Mode 1 transmitter to the model but it's an idea.
03-29-2017, 11:44 AM
#42
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Measnes, La Creuse, France.
Posts: 2,129
Received 146 Likes
on
123 Posts
Today, 29th March 2017, turned out to be something of a red letter day. There was virtually no wind and it was tee shirt weather in La Creuse. I took the BE2e to the strip for the first time since adding nearly 500 grammes of lead in total under the OS 70 FL to bring the c/g forward to a point about halfway above the observer's cockpit..
Long story short, we replaced the propeller with a 14x6 and took off with my friend Roger Aubard on the buddy box, but he wasn't on the buddy box, I gave him control from the outset! He's a Mode 1 pilot and I'm Mode 2. I'm not a bad pilot but Roger once finished tenth in the French national championships and I'm not that standard! The model took off and just required a small amount of down trim. Then I took control and proceeded to do a series of eights before handing back control to Roger for the landing. It was very easy to fly. The engine cut on the landing approach and the model nosed over in the grass but there was no damage.
We need to make a few adjustments to improve the low speed running of the engine but the extra weight has made all the difference.
The c/g as shown on the plan is simply wrong!
I'm looking forward to flying it again soon!
Happy Landings Gentlemen!
Long story short, we replaced the propeller with a 14x6 and took off with my friend Roger Aubard on the buddy box, but he wasn't on the buddy box, I gave him control from the outset! He's a Mode 1 pilot and I'm Mode 2. I'm not a bad pilot but Roger once finished tenth in the French national championships and I'm not that standard! The model took off and just required a small amount of down trim. Then I took control and proceeded to do a series of eights before handing back control to Roger for the landing. It was very easy to fly. The engine cut on the landing approach and the model nosed over in the grass but there was no damage.
We need to make a few adjustments to improve the low speed running of the engine but the extra weight has made all the difference.
The c/g as shown on the plan is simply wrong!
I'm looking forward to flying it again soon!
Happy Landings Gentlemen!
03-29-2017, 12:11 PM
#43
Congratulations! Sounds like you've now got the CG at about the same place as the FF designs listed in Outerzone. It does get you awfully close to the axle position, so noseovers might be the challenge for you now. Maybe try nudging it slightly back? Anyway, must be great to have a plane like that flying well.
Jim
Jim
03-30-2017, 08:46 PM
#44
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Measnes, La Creuse, France.
Posts: 2,129
Received 146 Likes
on
123 Posts
I'd like to thank Jumpinjan for his advice in Post 15. This really identified the problem for the first time. I have subsequently found out that both Ken McDonough's free flight BE2e which you can find on the Outerzone, and David Hurrell's 1/6 scale BE2c, available from Traplet, both have their balance points above the centre of the observer's cockpit.
That's good enough for me.
That's good enough for me.
03-31-2017, 06:31 AM
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Kettering,
OH
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08-04-2017, 12:29 PM
#47
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Clearwater, FL
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never too late to congratulate!
Today, 29th March 2017, turned out to be something of a red letter day. There was virtually no wind and it was tee shirt weather in La Creuse. I took the BE2e to the strip for the first time since adding nearly 500 grammes of lead in total under the OS 70 FL to bring the c/g forward to a point about halfway above the observer's cockpit..
Long story short, we replaced the propeller with a 14x6 and took off with my friend Roger Aubard on the buddy box, but he wasn't on the buddy box, I gave him control from the outset! He's a Mode 1 pilot and I'm Mode 2. I'm not a bad pilot but Roger once finished tenth in the French national championships and I'm not that standard! The model took off and just required a small amount of down trim. Then I took control and proceeded to do a series of eights before handing back control to Roger for the landing. It was very easy to fly. The engine cut on the landing approach and the model nosed over in the grass but there was no damage.
We need to make a few adjustments to improve the low speed running of the engine but the extra weight has made all the difference.
The c/g as shown on the plan is simply wrong!
I'm looking forward to flying it again soon!
Happy Landings Gentlemen!
Long story short, we replaced the propeller with a 14x6 and took off with my friend Roger Aubard on the buddy box, but he wasn't on the buddy box, I gave him control from the outset! He's a Mode 1 pilot and I'm Mode 2. I'm not a bad pilot but Roger once finished tenth in the French national championships and I'm not that standard! The model took off and just required a small amount of down trim. Then I took control and proceeded to do a series of eights before handing back control to Roger for the landing. It was very easy to fly. The engine cut on the landing approach and the model nosed over in the grass but there was no damage.
We need to make a few adjustments to improve the low speed running of the engine but the extra weight has made all the difference.
The c/g as shown on the plan is simply wrong!
I'm looking forward to flying it again soon!
Happy Landings Gentlemen!
Lyle
