All them curves in the pushrods is way bad juju.

Another option to get dual servos is to modify the single servo mounting hole to be large enough for two servos and connect each stock aileron to a servo.
The single servo setup must work OK so if you just want the flexibility of independant servo adjustment two servos in the middle will give you that.

Salty, adding the seperate servo for each wing panel is a super easy modification.

Buy a 12" long piece of brass tubing that has an inside diameter large enough to let you thread your servo connector through. Before joining the wings, sharpen the inside of the brass tubing on one end with a file or a Moto type tool with a grinding stone. Then place the sharpened end of the brass tubing against the inside root of the wing panel that you are working on and twist it back and forth while pushing in the direction where you will mount your servo. I've also serrated the cutting edge of the sharpened end with a small triangle file, then resharpened the inside edge. You can even use a propane torch to heat up the sharpened end of the brass tube to make cutting out the servo lead tunnel easier. It works very, very well. Just be sure to put your servo cavity in the thickest part of the airfoil and allow room for the joining spar. It is really a lot easier to do than to describe.

This will provide you with much better aileron control than is ever provided by aileron torque tubes. It also permits you to use the flaperon function on your computer radio. Oh, if planning to do the latter, double the chord (front to back) dimension of the new ailerons that you will need to make.

Good luck.


Ed Cregger

Ed,

I never did get a Dragon Lady, but I still like the looks of the plane. I went to the mall the mall the other day and sat on Santa's lap. I wispered in his ear that I would like one and he gave me a Ho Ho Ho. Of course my wife rolled her eyes at the whole thing.

I think I can make that mod without any problem, I hope. I was also thinking of cutting the aileron and using the center servo hole to make flaps.

I've seen it done that way on a Spitfire and a Chipmunk that I had.

What do you think? Is it worth it? I know the plane lands pretty slow already. I just figure this would be a good platform to learn a few things about using flaps.


p.s. I also told Santa I had a Magnum 91 and a 120AX sitting around so I wouldn't have to buy an engine for the plane. That may be why my wife rolled her eyes; I have a few engines lying around.

The problem with most models set up in this fashion is that they lack sufficient control surface area to provide the results we are seeking. Why folks design models with such small control surfaces has always puzzled me. Maybe they are cheap? <G>


Ed Cregger

The Dragon has never been a 3d design, its just a fun sport flier that will do some loops and rolls along the way. A little more rudder lets you knife edge a little better.
If you gotta 3D then look else where.

I wasn't thinking of 3D. I was just referring to sport aerobatics that incorporated the use of flaperons. I used to increase the chord of my Trainer Forty ailerons and run separate wing servos just for hoots. It was fun to fly low to the ground with solid control.


Ed Cregger

The way this airplane floats in you will not need flaps and the ailerons really are not that big so I do not think that they would be that effective for flaps anyway.
If you end up doing the dual aileron mod and your radio is capable of doing flap programing you can use the radio and the two servos to move them into the flap position.

As I said they will not be need this airplane is a dream to land as it floats in.

I loved mine until the experation date hit which was after only a few flights.

Went thru a number of airplanes that year should have seen my wifes eyes roll when a new package was left on the front door.
John

What do you guys think of the BME G90 gas conversion with the dragonlady, I'm just after a everyday sports flier, and I like the idea of the gasser. If not i guess it will have to be an OS pumper 4stroke.

Flaps are to induce drag on landing in order to set the aircraft down in a shorter distance, descending at a steeper angle of approach, not to add lift. Floating on landing is what you are trying to discourage when using flaps.


Ed Cregger

Actually flaps can have two effects on the wing. One is to increase drag but it can also increase lift by changing the surface area of the wing which reduces the stall speed there by letting you land a airplane at a slower speed then without flaps. Most of the time (in our world) you do not need to use steeper approaches but rather reduce the throttle and let the airplane glide in. A steeper approach would increase your airspeed which you would have to bleed off some how prior to landing. The increased drag associated with flaps also increases the strain or stress on the wing and this would increase if you did a steep approach and increased your speed with the flaps down.

The surface area of the ailerons on the Dragon Ladies wing's will not be really effective as they are small and I do not believe that they will cause much drag instead they would cause a increase in lift. I had a Razzle 3D setup with flaps and that airplane shot up due to the the size of the ailerons. It had massive ailerons therefore when I selected flaps it just ballooned upwards. I turned off the flap switch and never used that function again. Never was really needed for that airplane due to the wing loading be so low. The Dragon is a very gentle flyer and is really easy to land just bring back the power and let it come right in. Yes it will float as the wing loading is pretty light but it is not a real huge floater like the 3D models out there such as the Sig Mayhem or any really low wing loaded aircraft.

Without modifying the wing to much the easiest way to introduce flaps would be to install the second servo as someone suggested into the center portion of the wing. Use a computer radio to program flaps and allow the full aileron surface be used as the flaps in lieu of modifying a portion to be flaps and a second area to be ailerons.



"Flaps are hinged surfaces on the trailing edge of the wings of a fixed-wing aircraft. As flaps are extended the stalling speed of the aircraft is reduced. Flaps are also used on the leading edge of the wings of some high-speed jet aircraft, where they may be called slats.

Flaps reduce the stalling speed by increasing the camber of the wing and thereby increasing the maximum lift coefficient. Some trailing edge flaps also increase the area of the wing and, for any given aircraft weight, this reduces the stalling speed. The Fowler flap is an example of one which increases the area of the wing.

Extending the flaps also increases the drag coefficient of the aircraft so, for any given weight and airspeed, flaps cause higher drag. Flaps increase the drag coefficient of an aircraft because of higher induced drag caused by the distorted planform of the wing with flaps extended. (Induced drag is a minimum on a wing with elliptical planform.) Some flaps increase the wetted area of the wing and, for any given speed, this also increases the parasitic drag component of total drag." Wikpedia

John

I actually just read an interesting article in the February edition of Model Airplane News. It went over the different types of flaps and what each one does for the plane.

If you get a chance I'd recommend reading it.

Yes, flaps can also be used to increase lift on takeoff, but we were talking about landing.

The best way of approaching the situation (for me and my style of flying), is to at least double the chord of the ailerons (front to back dimension for those that don't know) and run a single servo in each wing panel that are commanded by a computerized transmitter with the flaperon and flaperon/elevator coupling features enabled. Without at least doubling the chord of the ailerons, the flaperon function is a complete waste.


Ed Cregger

Ed,
I understand we are talking about landings.

If flaps increase lift for takeoffs than the same thing applies for landings. The physical aspects of the wing did not change between take off and landing when using flaps. The difference would be in the type of Flap whether the drag is greater or lift is greater. The article that Salty mentions is a really good one as it describes those differences. On these sport airplanes the type of flap we would be using would increase lift unless you could get the aileron to about a 60 degree angle or higher which would cause a huge disruption in the air flow (angle is a guess and the size of the aileron or surface area of the flight control would also effect this). The increase in lift comes about because when you change the shape of the wing on the lower side you increase the area the air has to flow across there by increasing the lift. The degree of movement on the Dragon Lady would not be great enough to cause a disruption of flow either since the movement is only about 5/8" as recommended by the manual. If you did increase the chord you would increase that deflection but would it be enough to have the drag overcome the lift aspect of the flaps? The other option would be to have the ailerons move up there by becoming Spoiler panels and dumping lift very quickly.

Here is a good website that talks about the four types of flaps. The type would be the norm in our day to day life would be the plain flap. While scale modelers would use the different types of flaps used on that particular airplane that they are building. The split flap is used in the manner you describe but all the other ones are describes as increasing lift along with increase in drag but from what I have read the increase in lift overcomes the increase in drag.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...ices/Tech6.htm

John

The only Dragon Lady I've seen is a 60 size electric, no foam wing. It says Dragon Lady on the wing. Is this the same plane?

There was a kit at one time but the ARF from Global Hobbies / ModleTech is also a 60 size with foam core wings.
Here is a link to Hobby People that sells them.
http://www.hobbypeople.net/gallery/123761.asp
John

I would not deploy the flaperons downward, as you would when you want to increase lift. I deploy them upwards in order to kill lift. By killing the wing's lift, one has to increase the angle of attack and carry a lot of power, with it still being a losing proposition (altitude that is).

I'm not the least bit scale oriented and I always find myself thinking outside of the box. Competition fun flying some fifteen to twenty years ago taught me a lot about thinking outside of the box. <G>


Ed Cregger

Old Larry,

Back in the late 80's or early 90's when the Dragon Lady was introduced. it was available in two sizes as an almost ready to cover (ARC). The larger one is now available as an ARF .90 to 1.20 size. The smaller one was what I would have called a .40 to .50 size plane. My larger one was first flown with a Saito 1.30 twin and flew very well till the time I took off with my antenna collapsed and it flew on it's own into the side of a garage about a half mile away. After rebuild it has been flying very ably with an OS 90 four stroke.
The idea of putting flaps on a plane like this strikes me as somewhat funny as does the idea of using two aileron servos. Just increased complexity for no increase in performance. Any standard servo will throw those ailerons as far as you want........RJ

I will never use torque tubes for aileron control again - ever.

It just goes to show you how different people are. <G>


Ed Cregger

On your 60 size Dragon Lady where is the CG?

Just got me a Dragon Lady with an OS 1.08 BX-1. the airframe has a few minor fixes and the covering needs some patches and stretching. Can't wait to put her up, but that will have to wait until I get back in town on Monday. I'll try to get some pics up when I get back.

I think I got the newer ARF, but I'm hoping someone can help me identify it. I'm not sure if it has foam in the wing yet, but there are two large cavities on each wing tip where the covering will stretch... at least I hope it will stretch. I haven't tried getting my wrinkles out yet. Crossing my fingers and hoping that mine has ultracoat. Anything else I should be looking for?

I think I'll fly it a few times with the single aileron servo and then add a second later so that I can see the difference. I'm still not sure if I should just open the existing hole and add another servo in the stock location or make two holes in the wing to get rid of the torque rods. I know there are strong opinions from a few of you, but it's still a toss-up for me.

Are there any other mods to get working on.

BAD NEWS:

I lost my Dragon Lady this past Friday because I was in a hurry and didn't do my regular preflight check. After putting a new servo and a new receiver in I put the plane together and moved all the surfaces. Fuel up and went to the flight line. Took off and it felt kinda funny. Amazingly I figured out pretty quick that the ailerons were reversed and taught myself to fly backwards real quick. can't believe I didn't crash it immediately. I flew around one circle the whole time knowing that I'd crash for sure. I started to get into my radio's menu to reverse the ailerons back to normal. I got into the correct menu as the plane began to drift into a bigger circle. It got far enough away that I had trouble flying backwards and keeping orientation and finally it went down deep in the woods... maybe 1500 feet or so. I put everything in the truck immediately and headed towards where I thought it went down. I ran into the brush and trees in the general direction, but never found anything. I did swear to myself that I heard the engine still running at one point, but I know how deceiving things can be in that situation. It began to get dark and I didn't want to get lost in the woods alone so I headed home.

I'm planning to go again Monday and spend more time walking through the woods to look for parts. There's a good engine out there and I bet there isn't much damage to the airframe. I've printed arial views from google earth with the search area so that I can do a systematic combing. WISH ME LUCK!

In retrospect, yes I should have done the total pre-flight check, but I think there were a couple things I could have done to lessen the damage:
1) Put the plane down sooner intentionally so that the parts would be salvageable.
2) Forget the ailerons. Fly with rudder only. Everything seemed trimmed well I think that might have worked.
3) Don't fly alone at the field. I could have talked someone else through reversing the servo in my radio while I focussed on flying that dang thing backwards.

Sorry to hear about your plane audiomixer. You are right about the things you could have done. That just goes along with hindsight being 20/20.

I hope you find the plane. Even if it turns out to be worse then you think there is that good engine out there that can fly again.

Good luck on your hunt.

Looked for several hours on three different days. Never found anything. I'm giving up. RIP Dragon Lady and my OS 1.08.

That really sux. Did you have your name and number inside? Just in case some "good" person finds it later and is considerate enough to return it to you.

Any plans on getting another one?