guitarsbanjo

My learning was done on an Eagle II, and I've flown several and built one. I've also flown the Kadet MK II,(though I've never built one)and I do think the Kadet flys better. Both will land at nearly a crawl, but the ailerons (and I would build it with ailerons) on the Kadet stay more effective at a very slow (at any speed really) speed. If I were to build either, I would remove the incidence in the wing and most of it in the motor. I think for modern engines and radios this is all not needed. A tad of down and right thrust is probably good, but if built exactly as kitted Ican't trim them; any variance in the throttle setting makes them climb or lose altitude. Some people blame that on the flat bottom wings but Idon' think that is totally correct because I've flown other flat bottom winged aircraft with little or no incidence in the wing and they were far better. But, they fly fine as they are. I wonder if all of the incidence is so the plane "self corrects" if put into a dive? I do know that if you dive them towards the ground and let go of the stick they will TRY to come out of it, and if you were high enough they might recover, but for an experienced flyer I think they would fly better without. And for the trainee, I've trained quite a few people and rare is the beginner who will let go of the stick, even when I'm calmly saying, just let go of the stick, just let go of the stick, OK, I've got it!

I think the Kadet flys "better" because it has a stiffer wing, and it has sheeting on the leading edge wich probably has the effect of making the wing "look" thicker to the oncoming air? And I think it has a larger radius on the leading edge...it all adds up to an easy to fly plane. And the airfoil just looks better IMHO.

Austin