ORIGINAL: darock
What model are you talking about?
If it is a trainer, it's design will have been well sorted out if it is a popular trainer.
The plane is a Lanier Explorer 40. From the start, I've been unhapppy with the plane. There was a list of issues with it from the get go. All of the hardware with the exception of the main gear has been replaced, including the wheels. The motor mount supplied was the second cousin to a prezzel. The push rods and linkages were unusable, the rudder pushrod hung on a rear bulkhead. I found several spots where the fuselage doubler wasn't glued to the fuselage side. Turns out after the crash that there was a lot more of those that I couldn't get to while there was top and bottom sheeting on the fuselage. In searching RC Universe forums, I've not found any positive comments about the plane's flying ability.
ORIGINAL: darock
Are the gears assembled as designed? Most nose gear can be installed with quite a bit of leeway for length. If the airplane sits nosehigh, loosen the collets and shorten that front gear. Did you retrofit the main gear?
The stock nose gear had the stiffness of a coat hanger, and kept bending. It also didn't have enough winds so the centerline of the wheel was way off to one side and there was no way to get it under the pivot point of the gear. I replaced it with a DUBro front gear. The mains are still stock, however after some hard landings, they would also bend back and out to the sides. I would spring them into place every now and then.
ORIGINAL: darock
Can you supply a picture of the airplane? Take one from the side if you can. For most of the trainers that're popular in our hobby, if the wing is relatively close to being parallel to the ground when the airplane is taxiing, will take off perfectly.
When I get it back together. The front end is nothing but the sides all the way back to the wing right now. I should have it back by tomorrow though. The plane did sit nose high, partly due to my giving it a bit more prop clearance. Couple that with the mains spreading out due to hard landings and I'm guessing it was way to high.
ORIGINAL: darock
The angles like the incidence angle require that you know the centerline of the fuselage (datum line) so those aren't two different approaches. Do you need to work on the angles? Maybe. But it'd be the angle of the wing relative to the ground you need to sort out.
I assumed that there is little effect on the flight due to the aerodynamics of the fuselage, and that the datum line was just an arbitary reference for the rest of the incidents and down thrust. I do know that with the three popsicle sticks under the trailing edge, it handled a bit better. After rebuilding the tail, I forgot the sticks when I put it back in the air and it was back to the down elevator trim that I started with.
Thanks for your input. I sure would like to get this plane flying somwhat well so I can get qualified soon. Rainy season is about to start.
Don