Iceman, you can definitely add the second servo to the ailerons like you are suggesting, but if you put a y-harness on them it will defeat the purpose. No matter what the argument here about the true definition of what a flaperon is, your manual clearly states that you have to have the ailerons on seperate servos and plugged into channels 1 and 6 to be able to activate flaperons. Otherwise you'll just be doing the same thing with the y-harnes as you would be with the torque rod in the standard setup.

I'm just here to say I agree with DKjens in post #55.

Layne, I saw your call for opinions on another site that I'm not registered to post on.

I think technically speaking, flaperons and spoilerons are not coupled with elevator. But ask anybody who is using flaperons coupled to elevator what he calls the mix where his flaps function as both flaps and ailerons and go down when the elevator goes up and I'll wager he'll say "flaperons". If his flaps that function both as flaps and ailerons and go up when his elevator goes up and he'll likely say it's spoilerons.

Your aaaaalllllllllllll RIGHT!!!! A "Flaperon" is when you use aleirons and flaps on the same surface. WHO CARES in what combonation you use it with!?!?

And now a word from Northrop/Grumman (but what do they know, right? - nothing compared to a "top" 3d pilot)

I'm still waiting for someone to post some evidence that elevator is part of flaperons. Anyone? CombatPigg? You made the claim. Can you set us all straight and back it up with anything? Anything at all?

Now you're going to start a 3D plane vs. real airplane war.

I may have figured it out!the guys saying that flaperons are an aileron elevator mix are thinking that you mix in elevator as not to have a change in pitch of the plane when flaps/ailerons are deployed. This system is commonly used on sailplanes! But if you Break down the word flaperon FLAP-ERON The FLAP part is the part that comes down to provide extra lift or landing and some other slower parts of flight and the ERON is the last part of the word aileron! No where in the is any word or part of a word describing elevator!

Now as if to add fuel to the already 25 fott 25,000 degree flames does a beginner like me need them? I think I'll put them on but would like and opinion.

I don't think the Superstar needs them; but depending on how you install the servos, dual aileron servos have the benefit of crisper aileron control. You can then experiment with using flaperons once you have soloed.

For some, this type of experimentation is half the fun. e.g. I've now got an OS FS70 engine on my LT-40 with a 4 blade 11x6 prop. Is it necessary? No, but it gets some looks and goes well....

Can your X29A do a climbing flat spin? You would probably need to keep a bed pan handy if you had your thumbs on a 3D model. I would be willing to bet that I could get a semi scale X29A TO DO a climbing flat spin. Every model field/club in this land has a couple of pseudo intellectual, amature aerodynamacists, who talk a good game but that's usually about it. A good day at the field for some of these guys is to sweat their way through a single flight, and then land their lumbering barges with a flaperon assisted landing. WHAT FUN!!

Maybe if you shoot an email to the experimental aircraft division of the Air Force, they'll be able to anwer that for you....

I say TOMATO.....

What's your deal with a climbing flat spin???? Who cares? What does that have to do with the definition that you've given and failed to produce anything to back it up? I suppose if you can't do that, you can always take personal shots at people, but that doesn't make up for the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

Again I ask you to show me anything that backs your claims. Put up or shut up.

Cafeenman ,The book on what it means for a model plane to be able to do it all is being rewritten as we speak,and it appears you are getting left behind. Re publishing exerpts from tech manuals about what the term means to a X29 pilot isn't relevant . That's what FLAPERON means to the X29 flight regime. That example has no application for me and the planes I fly. If I had a scale model of the X29 and had flaperons set up with no canard coupling, I'll bet it wouldn't be long before I wised up and programmed in some canard movement, and yes I would continue to tell the world that I was using FLAPERON CONTROL!

OK, well your custom status is absolutely correct then. I have posted plenty of links to sites that back what I've said and all you've done is post your own personal claims. You also claimed you could get top fliers to back you. Still waiting for them to materialize too. I guess the bottom line is that you don't have anything of substance to substantiate your claims.

So this lesson in futility comes to an end. The x29 as well as all the other information I posted is relevant. It just doesn't back your claims so I guess it is irrelevant to you and your climbing flat spin.

Something I am curious about though. A flat spin uses rudder. So is rudder part of flaperons too?

Best of luck in all your endevours.

- Paul

NO cafeenman, the rudder is not part of flaperon, but it is key to the maneuver. Chuck Auger took the time to come over and explain his view, but you were too busy to notice that. I guess if I were to call an engine a motor, you could dig up all kinds of documentation to prove me wrong there too, but my choice of words would still be correct to a whole lot of people

That's not a good analogy at all. If you said a car bumper is a part of an engine, then I'd say you're as wrong as saying the elevator is part of flaperons.

I have read every reply to this thread. Apparently you haven't read the multiple times I've asked you to provide something to back your claims because you still haven't done that.

No, it IS a good analogy because there ARE people out there who would argue as energetically as you are [about flaperons] that a motor is not an engine. On the other hand there are people who do know better, but are able to see how the word is being used, and don't take it out of context.

Let me pipe up and calm the waters a bit .... but firstly let say that I understand Flaperons to mean the mixing of aileronds to behave like flaps....

So, this is how it goes ....
You have a V tail plane, so you mix rudder input to behave like elevator = Ruddervator.
You have a delta-wing, so you make your elevator behave like ailerons = Elevons.
You don't have seperate flaps, so you mix your ailerons to behave like flaps = Flaperons.
You don't have seperate spoilers, so you mix your ailerons to behave like spoilers = Spoilerons.

There is a systematic, logical, and consistent naming convention.

If you want to mix additional functionality with a pre-existing mix:
Flaperons + elevator = Flaperonevator.
If you have seperate flaps from the ailerons, and you mix in elevator = Flapervator

The name of the mix should refer to all controls mixed in to the pot. If not, it should be a composite like Flapersons with elevator.

Now, Combatpigg, as you using the name Flaperons for the tri-mix of Ailerons as flaps and Elevator, use it all you like .... but be warned that you will have limited success when talking to people about the wonders of your flying. If you can not expess yourself clearly in a manner that your conversant understands then you are liable to have numerous arduous conversations.

Finally, Combatpigg, if Flaperons are a mix of the flap behaviour of Ailerons with Elevators, what do you call it if there are no elevators in the mix?

gus

P.S. One final element in my Circumstantial defense.... The 3D community is the "ground breaking", leading edge, pioneering community in the RC Universe (or that is at least what they keep telling us). Why is it that in an environment full of cascading, blending, waterfalling, harrier, hovering, and tail-touching pioneers that they would take a dusty old term like Flaperons that has been around for longer than glow engines, and use it incorrectly. If The elevator mix was so special, surely the 3D folk could have invented a new, dynamic, and special name like Altervators, Enervaterons, or Dual-controlerons. Hell, what about torquerons? Even Superons. It is obvious that the intent is not to use the flap effect in a conventional manner, but in a 3D manner, so why not even Splaterons?

P.P.S Torquerons is now MY word, and I will use it to name the combination of ailerons and Elevator where the elevators halves are mixed with the corresponding ailerons so that a right aileron roll is coupled with a right elevator roll.... I know that used to be called ailevators, but ailevators is such a 2D term I want to rename it completely!

gus

No, combatpigg, that is not a good analogy. What you are stating is a difference in opinions of what a part is called (engine vs motor). What is being argued here is not what the part is called, but what is included in the "part" called flaperons. Obviously no matter what anyone says you are going to go on believing that flaperons inherently include elevator mixed in and you are quite welcome to that. I will have to agree with the many other people (myself included now) that are requesting YOU to get off your high horse, go out and find some information that directly relates to defining flaperons as a mix between the ailerons and elevator (not just you "highly sought after" opinion, but fact), otherwise I'm pretty sure that most of the people here that you have been so adamantly argueing with will continue to think of you as someone who believe that only his opinion matters even though his opinion can not be backed up. Another thing that I suggest you do is to post an apology to Iceman for hijacking his thread requesting a simple bit of information (which only a few in this thread have chosen to actually answer directly).

But hey, that's just my opinion, and I guess following your view of things, combatpigg, it doesn't matter if my opinion is based on any fact at all. Enjoy your day, I am.

HI, GUS! To answer your question, I call that flaperons as well. but I don't have any use for that setup with the planes that I fly. I was not the person who hijacked the thread, my reply s to ICEMAN were the only ones that offered him the kind of info that he was seeking. If you think that he was offended or damaged in anyway by this, you take this waaay tooo seriously. I'm willing to bet that he has been entertained by this. People have furiously debated [for decades] about including the word AINT in the dictionary. There are enough people using the word, [no matter how incorrect that may seem]that it has become a commonly accepted word.If you want to spend your time creating new terms, that's your business, for me I would rather spend my time flying 3D, COMBAT and playing with my RAT MOTOR.

Sorry Combatpigg, but I'm going to have to continue to disagree with you here. First off, I've gone back and looked through the post in this thread (hey, it was either that or actually work, and I get paid either way) and I honestly can't agree that you have posted any truly helpful information to Iceman's initial question. Your first post was closest to it in that you were telling him how they work, unfortunately that was the post that started the whole argument:
Since you were stating what your Futaba manual had to say about flaperons (see post No. 6), I decided I'd show what is in Iceman's manual concerning them:
Flaperon mixing (FP)
This function allows the ailerons to be used both as ailerons and as flaps. The flap control dial (CH 6) operates the flap
function. To use flaperon mixing both ailerons must be operated by separate servos.
To activate flaperon mixing:
1. Connect the aileron servo in the right wing to channel 1 (aileron) in the receiver
and connect the aileron servo in the left wing to channel 6 (flaps) in the receiver.
2. Enter the programming mode and access the W.MIX menu using the MODE key.
3. Push the DATA INPUT lever until FP is displayed on the screen. Now the mixing is on. The
servo travels will automatically be reduced to 60% and 40%, but full servo throw will still be
achieved when the aileron stick and the flap control dial are moved to their full extremes.
4. Once this mix has been activated, move the servos to their full extremes to make certain they are not overdriving the
controls. If necessary, adjust the linkages to achieve the correct control throws.
(If necessary, use the Servo Reversing function
to achieve the correct direction of servo throws.)


As you can clearly see, these directions do not mention the elevator at all. It does, however say that the function allows the ailerons to act as both ailerons and flaps. You saying that the ailerons go down when the elevator goes up has nothing to do with this function. What you are thinking of here is that when the flaps are activated, then the elevator is sometimes mixed in (with a completely seperate mix) to counteract the planes natural tendency to balloon up when flaps are activated.

As for you being the only one that has offered any help to his initial question, I have to disagree with that for another reason. As far as I've read (and I've read all of the posts at least twice now), I am the only one that actually took the time to look up his manual for his radio as well as his plane so that I could realize that the plane that he was wanting to use flaperons on couldn't actually do this in the stock setup. Then, when he mentioned that he was considering using seperate servos for each aileron, I was one of the two that mentioned to him that putting those servos on a y-harness would negate the entire idea because he would be only using one channel for both servos.

As for taking this all too serious, unfortunately the joking manner did not come through when I said that you should apologize to Iceman. For that, I will apologize to you. I'm doing this all in the name of education (and fun as well), so I would hate for anyone to consider my postings part of a flame war.

The full scale F-15 and other aircraft do combine differential stabilator an aileron movement to make them more manevuerable. I don't know what it is called but I do know that it exists. Just my .02 cents worth.

Larry

I think someone should close this thing, it's drawing out way too far. Nobody disagrees with what futaba has to say and nobody disagrees that Aileron+Flap mix is not called a flaperon. In fact it was the original definition and thats how the radio manuals list them, however there is a whole world of funfly type of 3D pilots that have defined them as combatpigg and myself defined them. This is an accepted definition in much of the R/C world. If you dont want to accept it then thats fine. Do you really think that two people on exact opposite sides of the country who have never met and have the same definition just dreamed it up? In fact there are a WHOLE bunch of us who define it this way. Most of the other guys dont post in the beginners forum. Go to the 3D forum and the funfly forum and post the question and see what kind of anwser you get.

I'm with you, SOUTHERNTOUCH9. I guess I'm guilty of GEEKSPEAKAPHOBIA, which is the awful, over coming fear of sounding too "nerdy" when using technical terms with too many syllables [SLATERVATERONS} On the other hand there are GEEKSPEAKOPHILES who derive great pleasure in using technical terms with as many syllables as possible. This is beginning to sound like a great theme for a MAD MAGAZINE article! I think we should ALL meet up at the HOUSTON HOVERFEST that is being put on by the PROFILE BROTHERHOOD and entertain each other with, "what we've got"!!

Yes. In fact, CombatPigg claimed he could get the Top 3D fliers in the country to come to his defense on the issue and he hasn't done it. So far it's just you and nobody knows who you are. Nobody knows who he is either except that neither one of you has offered a shred of evidence to support your claims. I have posted several links stating very clearly what Flaperons are, but CombatPigg has categorically renounced them all as being wrong even though many of the links are from our own R/C community up through cutting-edge aerospace companies. None of us know what we're talking about apparently. Two obscure guys that nobody has ever heard of apparently have all the answers. Good gosh. I can't wait to find out what else I don't know.

You're right. This thread needs to be put out of its misery.

I don't know CafeenMan, I'm kind of having fun waiting for the two of them to come up with more unsubstantiated reasoning like "because I said so".