Daddyo, Yup she flew good..... cg was way forward. Tweeked my homemade balance stand design tonight. It had some possible interference points that i was struggling with before the maiden flight that called for some rework. That, and i have a better handle on what i am doing. First flight cg was about 23 maybe 24 percent if that. Well forward of the forward limit.. With that cg, across the speed range, it still needed some nose down trim which turned out to be about 1/8 or so down. Three clicks. Not that much. That would seem to me to be in conflict with what you would think it should be with such a forward cg. In fact, when i read your post this morning, it kinda jared me because my first reaction was the same as yours. Why am i needing a bit of down elevator with such a forward cg? This is in addition to the known .3 to .4 nose down incidence, (trailing edge of stabilizer is slightly lower than the front edge), that i inadvertantly built into the tail. Again, it was hard to tell how much down trim was needed over the full speed range as windy as it was yesterday. I feel good about the wing incidences. Spot on according to the meter, and it is not exibiting the nasty charastics that i understand happen if those numbers are out of whack. All control throws are set at published recomendations with 30 percent exponential across the board with the exception of rudder which is at 20 percent.

That being said i feel sure the need for some down elevator lies in needing some down thrust in the engine mount. You think? For sure the cg needed moving aft, the balance stand don't lie. The cg needed moving aft at least into the forward part of the cg range,

I have moved the radio pack into the tail boom. It is now installed in the turtledeck in front of F6. With it in that position, on the stand with the thrust line level, the cg is at 27 to 28 percent. Well forward of the aft limit and close to the front limit. . Before you think i have lost my mind and not reading the stand and situation right, i have that twin in the nose, and it is way heavier than a single cylinder engine. The airplane would nose over at drop of a hat is another indicator. Now that i have moved the battery pack back about 4 inches, i know this will lead to needing a bit more down trim and the need should be just a simple matter of not enough down thrust. Two things going on there concurrently is my thinking. I am definately open to you thoughts my friend. I sure don't want to do somthing stupid. Any advise from the hog community on this and as to wheather anyone has had to add downthrust would be greatly appreciated.

The other things in your post.... Wheel pants .... I ditched the screws and and am using steel axles. I cut the axles long enough that theyy went through to the outside of the pants and landed them in a hole in a ply plate glued to the inside of the outboard wall of the pants. Increases the toughness of the assembly tremendously. With any luck they will last a while that way has been my experience.

I have no experience with the 90 twin. The published power output of the 100 twin is 1.6 hp. I understand the 90 is considerably less. If you are thinking aabout installing a 90, i would think it would do well. We both need to weigh these airplanes and kick it around some more. I do not have my needles set properly yet. Just running safely rich and relying on the glow system to keep the fire in both jugs lit. That and not really putting my foot in it till i sort out the other issues.

As far as all i said above on tthe trim issues, i am in no hurry to fly again till i get it sorted out. Good luck on catching some decent weather my friend!!!!