Dear Bill;

Thanks for all the info and help with thrust lines and incedence angles for my model. The fuse is built, covered and ready to fly...so changing incedence with the tail will be bit of work at this point in the build...the main wing to fuse will not be a real problem...just how to measure it accuratly. The down thrust with the engines will be a no brainer and will follow your advice, and I will ponder the rest...I want to get the wing built. I did not plan on the model to be aerobatic...but all incedinces were set at Zerro, or as close as I could get it to that factor. I've never had a flat bottom Clark-Y wing do good aerobatics and this model has a flat bottom wing.

Thanks for the info in "V" tail aerodynamics...now you have my interest and will do a little reading.

I totally agree to land as soon as I lose any one engine. That has been the way I fly twin's since day one.

Yep you need to keep your Trexlers a little on the soft side, and they will make a so-so landing look good...

I've been in the water three times over the 14 years at sea; once with a tail rotor gear box failure (Bell 47G-2A)...that was fun. An engine cooling shroud failure in a Bell 47G-5, and an engine failure in a 500. Actually landing on water with fixed floats is much easier and safer on water then on land. You can always turn into the wind and have a good spot to land onto, and unless you have one meter waves or more, no real problem. All my emergencies were in calm weather and calm seas. I've never done one with heavy weather at sea, but I've witnessed a few. In all cases the helo turned turtle (up side down), and every one went for a swim. I never once got wet, though I will admit I did sweat a bit and sucked a major part of my seat into an unmentionalble part of my anatomy. If you are not comfortable doing auto's, no matter what machine you fly, it's best not to fly. I used to pop two to three practice auto's each day while at sea...you never get enough practic with auto's. The Bell 47 is the sweetest swing wing in an auto God ever put on this planet. The 500 was nice too, it just happened a bit faster and much more controlable...but I flew with a fly-barless head on my 47's and that improved the manuverability of the 47, and I loved the mod. I loved flying the 47, being underpowered and all, for it does not have a mean bone in its body. The 500 takes a bit of attention, but so manuverable and powerful, that I fell in love with the "D" model...the HS ( "C" model ) was ok, but the "D" was magical to fly...Plus flying at 100 kts. in the 500-D ( we cruised at 85 kts. with the HS) was 40+ kts. faster then the 47. You really could cover some sea in a 500, and with aux tanks, stay airborn for 3+ hours. And then when the boat made a set, you got to herd/work the fish...now that was fun.

I had an engine failure in a Bell 206B III up in Alaska, and that was to ground. Bell helo's auto great, and the 206 is a sweet heart. I went down a couple of times in South East Asia, but that is another story for another time.

Thanks for all the great info, and soft landings always,
Bobby of Maui