MTK

Maybe you didn't mean it that way but, to me, this comes across pretty nasty. I know Bryan well enough to know that he wouldn't be interested in being associated with such verbiage. Healthy debate is one thing...such apparent attacks are something else. Even if true, does it really have to be said?? AND, if you're going to post such things, sign your name

protectedpilot

Maybe you didn't mean it that way but, to me, this comes across pretty nasty. I know Bryan well enough to know that he wouldn't be interested in being associated with such verbiage. Healthy debate is one thing...such apparent attacks are something else. Even if true, does it really have to be said?? AND, if you're going to post such things, sign your name
[/quote]

Matt, here are some exerpts of the things I read.... "Hmm, airfoils produce lift, learned something there..... Libby is still watching you." "Gee, I didn't know anyone had authorship to any trimming methods. (More Libby) "You apparantly have the answers to this problem, let's see them. (Libby again)

I've seen ridicule in the form of quoting mispellings, derisively, and more. This is supposed to be a discussion list, yet I (weekly) see my friend trashed by a....... pet? Libby is always watching. I'll tell you my name, which you already know, at the end..... BUT, Bryan Hebert is one of the most selfless people I know. He helps other people with their aircraft to his own detriment year in and year out. Earl Haury once said, "We can always beat Bryan if we can keep him building." What most people do not realize is, he builds for others 3:1. If you take a snapshot today, of the people he has helped, and the trophies they've won, you would be amazed. I've always considered myself a mediocre pilot, yet I am a district champion. Because I have great equipment and better coaching. And to be honest, seeing his lack of formal education ridiculed constitutes intellectual bigotry. Such verbage? Matt, Bryan Hebert earned and deserves more respect than he is getting, and occasionally it gets me. You will never meet a friendlier, more helpful person..... my friend, and one of the best men I know.

So, yes, I agree, let's stop this approach.... pets and all.

Brian Clemmons
NSRCA District 6 Advanced Champion 2010
US NATS 3rd Advanced 2010

MTK

Okay Brian, now I know. Yes I know you... didn't know "protectedpilot"

I speak with Bryan occasionally and know some of what he does on a regular basis in Pattern. For that, I am thankful. I know that he has taken young Brett under his wing and is helping him succeed. Our US F3A Team is beneficiary as is our small pattern community as a whole. Enuff said

protectedpilot

[/quote]
Okay Brian, now I know. Yes I know you... didn't know ''protectedpilot''

I speak with Bryan occasionally and know some of what he does on a regular basis in Pattern. For that, I am thankful. I know that he has taken young Brett under his wing and is helping him succeed. Our US F3A Team is beneficiary as is our small pattern community as a whole. Enuff said
[/quote]

Another factoid people don't know; about Bryan helping Brett..... Bryan started helping Brett at Brett's FIRST pattern contest ever. Lots of people want to jump in and help a winner; Hebert jumped in to help a Novice. Bryan recognized true talent, and that Brett needed better equipment. This was LONG before any national exposure. In the past four years, he has spent more time on Brett's airplanes alone, than his own..... in addition to building for AC Glenn, Jason Shulman, Brandon Landry, helping Randy Hicks, Brian Strachan and even me. Some great pilots, and a lot of pilots that aren't great. Some almost nobody knows. Pro bono. He loves helping people, it is just who he is. Enuff said, indeed.

Brian

rmh

The last pattern plane I trimmed ?
lets see-
I don't remember - I trim out everything I fly -to get the results I need
It's all compromise .
Didn't anyone tell you that?

protectedpilot

[/quote]

The last pattern plane I trimmed ?
lets see-
I don't remember - I trim out everything I fly -to get the results I need
It's all compromise .
Didn't anyone tell you that?
[/quote]

In all fairness, things do change. Last year I researched information on biplanes; wing incidences, thrust, etc. What I found was surprising..... most of it simply dated to the golden age of flying back in the 20's. Of course, most of it is wrong. But it worked then. Now, we have more powerful motors, lighter structures, faster flight envelopes. The point is, that the dynamics changed due to current technology. And pattern has changed since the eighties as well.

Getting online every single time someone fronts a new concept contary to something done in the eighties isn't productive. I loved the ballistic pattern flown then, but do not want to go backwards to it; I want the new planes, the new motors, the new patterns. And some of that requires new ways to think about setup. Give it a chance, open your mind to new possibilities. Live today and not in the past.

I can tell you easily when the last time I trimmed a pattern plane, I'll be flying it in another couple hours. The wing is at 1/2 deg positive, the CG at 27%. Several respectable pilots have flown it recently, ask them what they thought. It is good, really good. Much better than me. And that's the way I like it, where I am the weak link, not my equipment. But it is not remotely set up like my old Escape, or the Cosmos, or even the Mistress. This plane is more advanced in every way, and the setups from the eighties just won't cut it any more.

Chip Hyde has some comments on his newest plane; and guess what? The wing is set positive. Can't argue with his credentials. The man has done it all, still doing it, too. Not just in pattern, helicopters as well. He was on top back in your oft remembered heyday of the TOC, also. But he's flying positive now.

Not that any of this matters; you fly what you are comfortable with, what you know. But it is another matter answering each and every post with derision when someone has a new idea. Not cool. Move on, let it go. Let someone else try new things without feeling obligated to protect your own way of thinking by belittling the new. I flew zero-zero back in the day and it was good. I'm flying positive-positive now and it is also good. Doesn't mean the past is now bad, just means today is a new day.

So, let's let people speak their mind in this open forum without tearing them down, belittling their spelling or syntax, and let's honestly consider new concepts. Because we're trying to move forward, not remaining entrenched in the past; and because we're better than the petty bickering.


__________________________________________

Everybody is watching you.

rmh

Follow your own advice -
what makes you think my approach to trimming is simply what I did in the 1980's
Which , by the way follows the same rules of aerodynamics
Nope I don't fly pattern anymore - just found other interests
Entrenched in the past? - speak for yourself. As for clarifying a bit of history-
My 1976 force layout on the Tiporare had the wing saddle set at 1/16" positive -which figures out to 1/4 of a degree
this was relative to thrust n stab line
CG was aprox same as you now use
No Big deal -
You can't trick mother nature -

protectedpilot

Thanks, Dick, that's all I wanted to know.

___________________________________________

Everybody is watching you

rmh

YOu are welcome -
Enjoy your flying
What is strange tho is how you feel that pattern planes are really anything different or special in setting up.

protectedpilot

Now, you are telling ME what I think..... but since you find it strange, I'll propose an analogy. Suppose I were applying to Dale Earnhart Jr for a spot on his pit crew as a motor mechanic. "Yes sir, I have many years experience in tuning race engines............ Yes sir, I have worked for several crews before........... Well, it's been quite a few years since I worked on race cars, but I've kept my hand in, as it were, tuning passenger car engines; it's exactly the same thing as a modern race engine, you can't fool mother nature."

How do you think that would play to Mr. Earnhart?

Current knowledge IS relevant, planes have new nuances designed into them every two years, and the manuevers flow these days were, up until recently, thought impossible to do. Have you ever flown a knife edge loop? Today, less than four hours ago, I did a figure M, exiting on knife edge to the end of the box. (Why? Because I felt like it) Six years ago, that would have been amazing, but modern designs can do it. That planes have so much more capability is the point..... more capabilities dictate increased knowledge in trimming. When you demand less, less will suffice in trimming expertise.

Today, with a new setup, I had an issue with a roll to upright from inverted and trouble landing a 1 1/2 snap roll consistently. There was also an issue with establishing consistent up lines. Anyone care to take a crack at the fix? I used the triangulation trimming method, then made one adjustment and was quite pleased.


Brian

__________________________________________________ ___

"The truth will set you free. But first, it will p*ss you off."
Gloria Steinem

rmh

As a matter of fact - knife edged loop outside loops with snaps on the bottom reversing rolls reversing points all kinds of multiple snaps etc,, on on on were maneuvers I learned at least 10 -15 years ago
The TOC stuff and IMAC sequences developed all of these
-
They are even possible with tiny electrics - tho tougher to do nicely but fun to do
Do you fly electric pattern models - these are much better (my opinion ) in that power levels are far better.
Have you learned to do nice cross over spins and reversing spins?
This stuff is really fun
Local guys are pretty good pattern flyers (some of the best ) and I see their setups and we chat about em.
Just because I no longer fly em does not mean I am unaware of the latest stuff.
As for trimming for accurate flying - -This is really a case by case thing
once you set up basic parameters .
Be it a 40 pounder or an 11 pounder you simply plug away at it till you get the best compromises. I liked the car analogy
I had class winning drag car - 50 years ago and just recently had a 65 Nova I did with 327 etc- also a Volvo with an HOFord engine
but now I just putter around in a Turbo Diesel setup .
Funny but except for the computer setups on engines - -It's much the same as years back- when I ran a Austin Healy with a small block Chev. (2100lbs wet)
Power to weight cures lots of ills.

protectedpilot

Dick,
You've implied that you had something to do with the Spark design; uploaded drawings..... have you helped Andrew trim it? I know who has... does the term Triangulation Trimming ring any bells? Matter of fact, Hebert has helped Jesky, Wickizer and Shulman with trimming. EVERY US Team member flies pos-pos right now; Hebert has assisted with two out of three currently on the Team, and designed one of the planes being flown by a current Team member, who he also coaches and calls for. Let's get down to brass tacks....

The original question.... what was the last pattern plane you trimmed? What were the symptoms, what were the results? No fluff, just straight stuff. I want specifics where YOUR 0-0 setup, which you trimmed, is in use; and examples.... in pattern. This century, please, give or take a dozen years. Again, I want specifics from pattern, as this is a PATTERN thread. Not a foamie thread, not IMAC, not top fuel dragsters. Pattern. How have you contributed to a PATTERN plane trimming is what I'm asking. And when that was.

rmh

I NEVER said I had anything to do with the SPARK.
where in the -did you get that idea?
As far as trimming - I really don't care how you trim
and what I do is obviously not worth anything to you
Please find something else to do.
I have heard all the yammering about mystical trimming I can tolerate

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Brian, I for one have no clue to as why you are getting so defensive. Please ask yourself one question before replying to this thread again. How is the current status of this thread benifiting pattern? IMO it is not. You and Rich have a difference of opinion and that is all good. It is nice to read different ways to skin the cat and then for one to choose what makes most sense to him. What I see here is almost a personal attack at someone because be beleives differently. Not cool. One can't argue with Mr. Hansons track record. For the benifit of everyone, please make your suggestion and move along. There is no need to get on a soapbox and cry " Im right, Rich is wrong ". The reason this thread keeps going back to IMAC is simple. The sequences are MUCH more difficult yet are flown with scale airplanes complete with their bad habits and an airplane remains competitive for many years. I'm wondering how aerodynamic forces keep changing on you pattern designers yet remain constant for the IMAC crowd?

protectedpilot

I haven't cared for some of the tactics employed, and got specific with the thread. Not arguing the track record, but I asked legitimate questions..... how does the trimming method work, give examples. Harsh? Maybe, but fair. I never pointed out syntax or spelling errors, and I never went back and edited my posts to cover up errors. Dick has done all of that, but all I did was ask direct, legitimate questions about the method. Aerodynamic forces don't change; but what pattern fliers require of their aircraft DOES change, every two years. The planes are strictly controlled as to size and weight. As propulsion systems evolve, though, as soon as ONE pilot can do a difficult new maneuver, you can bet he will ask that to be included in the maneuver list, and select it for an unknown. From there, it goes into a sequence. The whole point is to require more and more of the pilot, as much and as soon as possible. Nobody asks as much of their aerobatic craft as pattern. Ask any pattern pilot, not many IMAC planes fly as true as pattern planes. Darned few. They can't because they have to follow scale rules, and it just doesn't work. Remember, in IMAC it is as much about the aircraft as it is about the pilot. In pattern, it is all about the pilot. Further, full scale can't fine tune the way pattern does because of the expense. And FWIW, I wasn't defending MY trim method, it was in defense of a trim method that Dick has done his best to squash. Mystical, he calls it. Ask him why he has been so defensive. I just got tired of seeing my friend trashed and asked direct, pointed questions. I have a file from my K Factor days of emails all along this same line.... same stuff. He wrote me tons. It puzzled me at the time because the man wasn't even involved in pattern any more. Matter of fact, when I started the K Factor publishing, I immediately made several new best friends.... people that wanted me to help them change the weight rule, the size rule, the sequences, and to further their own reputation and theories. I resisted. I agree with the rules, one arbitrary standard is as good as another... and I preferred to let conceptual ideas prove themselves out...... until people start tearing down the messenger in order to kill the message. Heck, there were out and out misrepresentations that I let slide. For someone that preached 0-0 for all these years, he just admitted to setting the Tipo positive in 1976. But he tells someone else that doing that is just wrong. Which is it? He claims that the fuse area is what makes everything work, being equal to wing area, then when called on it, makes a disparaging comment about spelling, and reverses himself saying it is about efficiencies. Go back and see how many posts were edited after the fact. Me, defensive? No, I just called for honesty. Remember, the truth isn't what hurts, it is the running from it.

Lnewqban

Isn't all this trimming thing anything more than making a motorized kite respond more accurately to the operator's will?

Such non-important thing in this world is supposed to take such levels of sophistication, mystery and argumentation among the several "schools"?

I do know that there are pro guys making a living out of competitions and commercialization of these kites and associated supporting equipment.
I buy that those gentlemen are granted to take it so seriously; but not for the rest of the kite fliers that do it for fun.

Keep that word in mind: fun

Play with your kites while enjoying all the good and pleasurable things around them.
Respectfully discussing in this forum what you have learned, or feel you should teach, (learning from others' experiences, even if you don't want it) is one of those pleasurable things.

Once you allow yourself to twist such a non-important thing into a life or death contest, you are just destroying the idea.

Step out of your fierce competitive bubble, and the truth will be evident,.....perhaps.

rmh

My latest model is a Fun Cub- and it is .
The missionary zeal on trimming is apparantly a mind set amongst some.

protectedpilot

Perhaps you are right about a missionary zeal. I will freely admit that flying pattern becomes an all consuming quest for perfection. Of course, we will never get there! But, every pattern pilot will admit to a certain degree of obsessiveness, if they are honest. I want slow rolls that look like they are on a wire, downlines that look like rocks in freefall, snap rolls that defy you to be certain they actually happened because the plane returned to the exact same base line in the exact same attitude. I want my knife edge to fly horizon to horizon with no pull of any kind and I want to be able to do it every time. I want my plane to be better than I am, much better, so that all of the progress made in pursuit of these goals is mine.

You would have to be a pattern pilot to understand this though. This IS a pattern thread, BTW. Kites at the five and dime, Cubs in the fun fly forums. And any pattern flier will tell you that flying pattern will give you a thick hide You get it when you finally become honest with yourself.

Brian
______________________________________

When truth is discovered by someone else, it loses something of its attractiveness.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Lnewqban

I respectfully believe that your approach is still wrong, Brian.
I understand and respect that you see mine as wrong at the same time.

I am not even a mediocre RC pilot, leave alone to be a pattern pilot.
No pilot knows how bad he is until he honestly try to be good.

However, I can understand the pursuit of perfection, because I have been a sport motorcyclist for many years.
Just for the sake of it, I enjoy a perfect trace and a optimum braking.
I cannot care less how it looks, or, what it is the same for me, who is watching.
The battle is among the machine, the track and my skills.
It is not about how it looks, it is about what I do and who I become when I do it.
There are guys that do it better? There are guys that do it worse? I imagine; but I just don't care; I am competing against myself.

From my point of view, the pursuit of perfection, in any discipline, starts becoming wrong at the point where you must prove other approaches wrong, inflating your ego in the process.

And that point has been reached in this Aerodynamics thread on trimming radio controlled airplanes (not only pattern, by the way, since all those "inferior" and less graceful flying machines need some love as well), which could have been much more interesting otherwise.

Once the first claims about one method being the ne plus ultra of fine adjustment, one discipline being the belly bottom of radio control, and a perfectly trimmed kite being the most important news in the World, this thread lost its beauty.

For much less than the personal attacks seen here, other threads have been locked or comments have been removed.

protectedpilot

You sound like a nice guy, reasonable. And right. As I've mentioned, I got specific because I saw my friend being trashed for forward thinking. Some of the comments have been edited after the fact.... backtrack and you will see the evidence. Here, we are ALL trying to achieve that which we cannot... perfection.....some make helpful comments, some just tear down anything that contradicts what they did years ago.

A good approach might be; "Hey, I tried this, and that is what happened." Instead, I see "You are wrong, you're an illiterate." Well, I'm not illiterate, I'm currently relatively competitive, and I put my two cents in. Asking for specifics about a trim method certainly cannot be seen as an attack. In a healthy debate, one proposes a concept, then defends the concept. I asked for a defense of the concept.... that there is nothing new to be learned about trimming a pattern plane. For the record, I simply refuse to believe that.... we can always learn. For the record, I resist people that attack those that attempt to further our knowledge with commentary on the relative value of the individual based on their command of the English language.

If someone has an idea on setup that could make me better, I want to hear it. But be prepared to be asked to prove it. That is the nature of a discussion.

_________________________________________

You can't expect to meet the challenges of today with yesterday's tools and expect to be in business tomorrow.
Unknown author

ytell

So, back to aerodynamics (the science, not the politics) and trimming,
Is there a rational for playing with wing incidence or decalage?
I think it is comonly agreed that since the the wing is that flying and everything else follows what is the point in making changes in wing incidence in a pattern model? (assuming fuselage AOA is not a factor)

Yoav

charlie111

I can't think of any? The pilot has full control of angle of attack!

protectedpilot

Rationale, or science? I can offer rationale, whereas many, many aerodynamicists have argued with this method. I have a chemical engineering background, and in the early going tried to make the observed facts fit the formulas, but could not. I really, really do not want to get into Reynold's Number here. Foamies are too light to equate; full scale wing loadings and flight envelopes are off from pattern.... for me, someone a whole lot better than me set the airplane up for me and it worked.

First, assume you have a 0-0 setup and that the CG is at the thoeretical perfect spot for the wing/plane combination. Then, trim for hands off level flight. Now try a knife edge. It pulls to the canopy every time. You also have upline/downline issues. Very, very small issues for just about any pilot there is, except for a pattern pilot. Now, try setting the wing at +0.5deg, and adjust for level hands off flight. These issues are not so bad any more. I'm talking empirical data here. Not calculations. Seen way too many aerodynamicists argue the point, but one thing they cannot argue, is that it works. Ask a top competition pilot.

Full scale aircraft are engineered, then go to testing; refinements, then production. Not a whole lot of modifications, just one or two. Too expensive to do too many. Pattern pilots put in wing adjusters to account for minute deviations in wing planform (I use a modified NACA63A) and model straightness; then make many, many adjustments. In the course of making these adjustments, some have discovered that a slightly positive wing setting works. It is not a lot, according to Rich Hanson recently, 1/16" offset on a Tipo yields a +0.5deg setting. Arch Stafford concurs on a similar thread in the pattern forums. Bryan Hebert has published an entire trimming method treatise based upon these settings.

But for you, there are several questions to ask.... number 1, are you satisfied with what happens between scheduled meetings of aircraft and ground? If the answer is yes, you are through. If not, you have something to change. Secondly, does your aircraft allow you to perform the maneuvers you attempt to fly? Again, if in the affirmative, you are finished. If not, you have work to do. If you really want to fly no-mix, 0-0 setups, then you will ALWAYS be applying elevator inputs while the wings are parallel to the ground or any portion thereof. If you adjust for hands off level flight, your work load is cut in half, but now you will have other problems. CG and incidence are tied together closely, so unless you are prepared to go through an enormous amount of trial and error (assuming you are a competition pilot and the two aforementioned questions resulted in negative responses) following someone else's trim method isn't a bad idea.

I always told my kids that the difference between a smart guy and a genius is that a smart guy learns from his mistakes, but a genius learns from someone else's mistakes. Therefore, I've followed the Hebert method, he's done the trial and error. Doesn't make me a genius, but I have a leg up on many smart guys

This is rationale, not science; but it comes from a currently realtively competitive pattern pilot, corroborated by other currently competitive pilots. Hope it helps.

Brian Clemmons

DagTheElder

Hi,

Some answers and questions may be present in this thread, by the way, this confirms (by at large)the method Bryan is advocating.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_10..._2/key_/tm.htm

Best regards

flyncajun

Thanks Dag
or go here http://www.ckaero.net/blog/triangulation-trimming-2/