ORIGINAL: da Rock
ORIGINAL: iron eagel
I think it is possible to reduce that by at least 25% ( and that does not even include the weight of the wire braces and all of it components perhaps I should factor them in as well). While that may not be all that much I think that every gram you can take off of the wing loading will enhance the performance. And since your dealing with the moment of the aircraft every gram you can take out of the weight of the tail has a much larger effect than it has up forward.
Oh jeez..... LOSE the wire braces idea. It is a really silly idea when you consider how strong tails can be made on our models with just a very slight consideration of structure and materials.
I think it still around in the ARFs because they take almost no notice of materials.
It's actually diametrically opposed ideas to be considering one technique to streamline and strengthen, yet retain wire bracing.
If for any reason you feel the urge to wire brace anything, simply use sticks. Spruce is dependable and light and can be generally airfoiled. The glue to attach it is much lighter and simpler than the ridiculous hardware used with wire. The sticks can be TEN times the size of the wire and be LESS drag. Ten times.....
No lie. Wire braces on a model airplane are just plain bad.
Da
Don't you recall that from the start the wire braces have not been part of my plan, they were included with the kit. I only mentioned them because I am going to lose them, I have not bothered to weigh them, but I can use that weight to add to the stock structure to see if I can actually reduce the weight from the stock setup. I am not going to go through all the effort of a build up stabilizer and elevator to stick those braces back on it.
Edited to add:
While laying out the new components for this assembly I came up with yet more questions.
Manny others have modified this airplane by adding both area and larger throws to the elevator and rudder to male them more effective. A lot have used counterbalances to the control surfaces as well.
Doesn’t the increase in span from the addition of counterbalances reduce things like roll response?
By adding more rudder surface up higher from the central axis via the counterbalance method , cause reverse roll coupling?
Isn’t it far better to increase the cord of the control surface closer to the central axis of the plane and pay the price of the higher drag that will cause rather than cause control coupling issues?
When you increase the cord you shift the MAC reward also does that not make the surfaces more effective because you are extending the moment arm?
One final question if I can reduce the mass of the components used in the tail surface construction will that not in itself make the control response better?