i have a world model cap 323-40. its a very nice plane to fly. i have the os 46 ax on it now, but i am thinking about a os 61. i am happy with the speed and power now. it is just short of hovering power [].

there is a small problem with it. if i give full up elevator at high speed it will spin and twist out of control until i release some pressure on the elevator. i think its flex in the control lines. its a wood rod with 2 metal rods that you have to bend into a Y to hook on to the elevators. then it has one metal rod to go to the servo.


is there any other people that had the same problems with their planes? is so what did you do to fix it?

thanks

Paul

Typically Caps don't like to fly heavy and adding a .61 would definately add a few extra ounces that will most likely make the plane even more squirrely.

If you want to add more power and try hovering go to a four stroke. A Saito .72 is roughly the same weight as the .46 you already have in the plane but is a clear winner in the thrust department swinging a 13 - 14" prop rather than an 11" like the .46 does. Other than relocating the throttle cable and trimming the cowl it's almost a bolt in replacement for the .46.

Also, adding a .61 will require adding weight to the tail to get it to balance if you can't shift enough gear around to get it to balance properly, bringing up the overall weight in the process which is a no-no with Caps like I said earlier.

As for the control rods, ditch them. Excessive flex in a control set up is an absolute no go with a 3D plane. Do the best you can to get ALL of the slop and flex out of your controls and you'll be amazed at how much better the plane flies. My personal favorite on .40 sized planes are the Sullivanwith 2-56 wire pushrods that run through the red tubes. When installed correctly they can result in a very stiff and exxective control system that doesn't shrink or grow with temp changes like the golden rods do.

The twisting out with full elevator input is the result of over controlling the pitch of the plane. This is pretty typical of aerobatic designs like the Cap. Moving the CG back, making sure the lateral balance is dead on and getting the correct amount of right thrust dailed in will help lessen the tendency for the plane to "snap out" like your describing. For normal flying Caps only require a small amount of elevator throw, less than 25 degrees is plently. For 3D the requirements are for much more but then you have to do all of the things I just described in order to lessen the natural tendencies of the plane to snap and make if more controllable.

thanks for the reply.

please bare with me, i understand what you are saying, but what is over controlling the pitch? does that mean that i have to much elevator pitch programed in? from what i understand the more input the faster and sharper your rolls and loops will be.

when i fly full power and pull into a vert climbout, it does not take very much elevator to snap it vert.



Paul

[X(] my mistake. Cap 232, not 323

Over controling the pitch refers to the amount of elevator travel relative to the stick input applied by you on the transmitter. If you have too much elevator travel(throw) the model will become very pitch sensitive, being easily over controlled. For general flying, where smoothness is desired, you don't need very much throw at all. On a 40 sized model it's not unusual to see no more than 3/8" or less for good control and responsiveness. For 3D flying you generally need all that you can get but that comes with some caveates. If you want to be able to fly that model in a 3D style your going to have to make sure that the whole plane is set up correctly as I described earlier. Basically what I am saying is that it takes more than a biger engine and a lot of throw to get a plane to fly 3D without it being a handful and nearly impossible to fly once you flip into high rates. Caps are known for being "snappy" and can get you inot trouble in a hurry if your not ready for it, making the plane heavier will only make these characteristics worse in most circumstances.

What you described earlier is a classic symptom of a set up that has far too much elevator throw. When I set up a plane one of the first things I do is check for any snapping tendancies. The test is simple, full power with wings level, pull hard and observe. If the plane does any weird gyrations I take out some throw and try agian. I keep doing this until I have found the point at which the plane only does a loop and suffers no departures. You need to do this both upright and inverted because the settings are often different. Once all of that is done you can fly with confidence in low rates and the plane becomes much more manageable in general. 3D is typically done either in the vertical or while flying slow so the rules change and you can use the higher throws that your high rates provide.

do you know what planes that are the same size as a cap 232 40 that dont snap?

Ive got a 40 Blackhorse Cap232 with OS50SX in it. If I use my elevator high rate setting for anything other than up high snaps and aerobatics when I want it to snap, it will snap easily.
That being said, on low rates its a *****cat. I doesnt tip stall easily like so many rumours about the CAP, its easy to sow right down for landings. In fact after 12 months of flying RC with foamie slope gliders the CAP232 was my first powered plane. I borowed a trainer for a few weeks to get used to the takeoff and landing idea then flew my CAP232.

Shogun, above you mentioned moving the CG back as a possible or part of a cure for the snapping problem ? Surely you meant forward.
Last time I moved my CG back in the CAP it was a handful with pitch at my usual low rate settings. I set my CG at recomended postions then fly, one of the tests I like to use is to enter a 45 degree climb at full power and do a half roll inverted. I set my Cg so the model slowly drops the nose. Inverted straight and level flight usually then needs a touch of down to hold level.

Any plane can snap if not set up properly, Shogun has told you how to set up properly. The Cap is "known" for it as in standard guise it comes with large elevators compared to other scale aerobats (extra, giles, etc)

As for your original question, putting in a 61 will make things worse not better. The extra thrust will be cancelled out by the extra weight of the engine, plus you will have to do something to get the CoG right as Shogun says.

The suggestion of a Saito 72 is good, but the new Saito 82 would be even better. It is basically the 72 but bored and stroked. I beleive that it can swing an apc 14x6 quite happily, which will give you lots of thrust (the 61 would struggle with a 14x6)

RP56, I hope you are still on the thread.

I would recommend you do a search for "Kyosho Breitling CAP 232" here on RCU for one of my old threads in "ARF or RTF" in which I describe how I got rid of that snapping effect by using elevator pull-pull. Its easy to do on the CAP due to fuz geometry and will give you an awesome 3D aircraft. This little plane (which is the exact same thing as the WM models, Kyosho buys from them but with different covering schemes) on full throttle and 3D elevator will do the best wall ever, has never snapped on me, ever!

hpergm.