You will crash !!!
02-19-2005 | 09:00 PM
#51
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Springtown,
TX
RE: You will crash !!!
OK, back on task here. Epoxy will not (obviously) wick into the wood of the wing, so therefore any attempt to epoxy CA hinges would lead to a build-up of epoxy at the joint. This would make a stiff, inflexible joint. Period. Why would you epoxy CA hinges? They are labeled CA hinges for a reason!
02-20-2005 | 06:25 AM
#52
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Gent, BELGIUM
RE: You will crash !!!
ORIGINAL: 2slow2matter
Apparenty you WOULD dissagree with "no one really understands," because from your tone, you're obviously the only one that really does understand--but that's because you read it all on some website? I never said i was right, and I never said you were wrong, but you insist that I'm wrong. I don't think I'm totally wrong or off base, I'd bet that I have a higher understanding of fluid dynamics than you. you've never said what your background is.
OK, you're right, this is off subject, and this is now becoming an argument, which I didn't want. Some people have a hard time discussing things without calling the other person wrong. Sorry we couldn't have that sort of discussion.
Apparenty you WOULD dissagree with "no one really understands," because from your tone, you're obviously the only one that really does understand--but that's because you read it all on some website? I never said i was right, and I never said you were wrong, but you insist that I'm wrong. I don't think I'm totally wrong or off base, I'd bet that I have a higher understanding of fluid dynamics than you. you've never said what your background is.
OK, you're right, this is off subject, and this is now becoming an argument, which I didn't want. Some people have a hard time discussing things without calling the other person wrong. Sorry we couldn't have that sort of discussion.
ORIGINAL: 2slow2matter
OK, back on task here. Epoxy will not (obviously) wick into the wood of the wing, so therefore any attempt to epoxy CA hinges would lead to a build-up of epoxy at the joint. This would make a stiff, inflexible joint. Period. Why would you epoxy CA hinges? They are labeled CA hinges for a reason!
OK, back on task here. Epoxy will not (obviously) wick into the wood of the wing, so therefore any attempt to epoxy CA hinges would lead to a build-up of epoxy at the joint. This would make a stiff, inflexible joint. Period. Why would you epoxy CA hinges? They are labeled CA hinges for a reason!
02-20-2005 | 07:30 AM
#53
My Feedback: (12)
RE: You will crash !!!
ORIGINAL: Prophex
OMG, my manual said to use epoxy:
OMG, my manual said to use epoxy:
02-20-2005 | 09:21 AM
#54
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Springtown,
TX
RE: You will crash !!!
Wow, in one sentence your manual says to check carefully that all hinges are glued to the aileron, and in the next sentence it's telling you to glue them. That doesn't really make sense to me. My bad man, looks like you followed the directions as you should have. I think we've found the problem. It definitely looks as though those are CA type hinges. You The wing halves should have been epoxied together, and the torque rod should have been epoxied in. Always make sure the torque rods are lined up properly (by bending if necessary, which it sounds like you did), and then epoxy them in place. This is done simultaneously with CA'ing the hinges in place. The epoxy will cure in the torque rod hole, and make a nice tight fit, with no slop. You should call the manufacturer and ask for a replacement. I don't know if it will do you any good or not, but they have definitely misled you in your manual.
Sorry about that dude, but I think that is the problem all together. If they won't replace it, then when you rebuild it, for sure take those hinges out (or cut them off if they are still stuck) and re-hinge the aileron. Cut your own slots with a razor, putting 4-5 hinges in each aileron. Then, match all of the hinges up, make sure you have free movement, press the ailerons and TE of the wing together firmly, and then fully deflect the aileron surface downward--this will expose the hinge for glue, and give you all of the gap you will need. Apply about 2-3 drops of THIN CA glue to each hinge. Wait a minute. Do the other Aileron. Wait a minute. Turn the wing over, fully deflect the ailerons upward and repeat the process. Allow the glue to cure for a couple of minutes ,and start flexing the crap out of both ailerons. You will have a joint that will be as flexible as you need for a trainer!
Even if those hinges will pull out, please cut and use different slots for your CA hinges, as the epoxy that cured in those slots will not allow the CA to cure the hinge to the balsa.
Sorry about that dude, but I think that is the problem all together. If they won't replace it, then when you rebuild it, for sure take those hinges out (or cut them off if they are still stuck) and re-hinge the aileron. Cut your own slots with a razor, putting 4-5 hinges in each aileron. Then, match all of the hinges up, make sure you have free movement, press the ailerons and TE of the wing together firmly, and then fully deflect the aileron surface downward--this will expose the hinge for glue, and give you all of the gap you will need. Apply about 2-3 drops of THIN CA glue to each hinge. Wait a minute. Do the other Aileron. Wait a minute. Turn the wing over, fully deflect the ailerons upward and repeat the process. Allow the glue to cure for a couple of minutes ,and start flexing the crap out of both ailerons. You will have a joint that will be as flexible as you need for a trainer!
Even if those hinges will pull out, please cut and use different slots for your CA hinges, as the epoxy that cured in those slots will not allow the CA to cure the hinge to the balsa.
02-21-2005 | 08:12 AM
#55
RE: You will crash !!!
2slow- it kinda reads like the hinges may have been pre-attached to the ailerons and the assembly now needed to be attached to the trailing edge of the wing. I wonder why they didn't just finish this step at the factory, been much easier.
02-21-2005 | 10:45 AM
#56
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Springtown,
TX
RE: You will crash !!!
Oh yes, that would make a little more sense, but you're right, why not just finish it. Most trainer arfs are already hinged, are they not? I'd definitely give the man. a call!!!
02-21-2005 | 04:15 PM
#57
My Feedback: (11)
RE: You will crash !!!
ORIGINAL: 2slow2matter
Actually, I never said that I could explain it all. In fact, I said that it is not totally understood by anyone, much less me. I can get my planes to fly at much higher than 15-20 degrees of AOA, but only if applying thrust and the plane is moving forward. However, when little to no thrust is applied, then yes, the AOA must be lower than that or the wing will stall--again, "my" theory supports this because as a higher AOA is achieved, the plane will bleed off energy in a hurry, due to excess drag. As the energy goes away, so does forward movement, airspeed decreases, and the wing stalls. However, if you are landing into a strong wind, then the wing can support a much higher AOA without stalling--this is because although groundspeed is decreasing, airspeed remains high.
A person can find a website that explains just about anything, just about anyway they want it to. That doesn't make it right--there is a lot of false information on the internet. However, that doesn't make me right either. I'm not pretending to totally understand it, and I'm not disputing the information on your website. I would say that anyone who claims to totally understand why airplanes fly is probably wrong. I will say, though (and I think we agree on this) that Bournelli has very little to do with it. If it did, then when you go inverted, the low pressure would suck you to the ground, without much recourse for you as the pilot.
BTW, and this is just based upon my experiences with RC, and this is totally my opinion, but I believe my flat bottom airfoils produce much more lift at lower airspeeds than my symmetrical airfoils do. This can be seen when landing. My flat bottoms glide forever, my semisymmetrical airfoils are fairly easy to land, but don't glide near as far, and my symmetrical wings I have to "fly" to the ground.
BTW, I love debates like this. I'm not arguing. This is my kind of thing!
Also, this is by no means "my" theory, it's just the one that makes the most sense to me, considering my background and what I've been taught.
Actually, I never said that I could explain it all. In fact, I said that it is not totally understood by anyone, much less me. I can get my planes to fly at much higher than 15-20 degrees of AOA, but only if applying thrust and the plane is moving forward. However, when little to no thrust is applied, then yes, the AOA must be lower than that or the wing will stall--again, "my" theory supports this because as a higher AOA is achieved, the plane will bleed off energy in a hurry, due to excess drag. As the energy goes away, so does forward movement, airspeed decreases, and the wing stalls. However, if you are landing into a strong wind, then the wing can support a much higher AOA without stalling--this is because although groundspeed is decreasing, airspeed remains high.
A person can find a website that explains just about anything, just about anyway they want it to. That doesn't make it right--there is a lot of false information on the internet. However, that doesn't make me right either. I'm not pretending to totally understand it, and I'm not disputing the information on your website. I would say that anyone who claims to totally understand why airplanes fly is probably wrong. I will say, though (and I think we agree on this) that Bournelli has very little to do with it. If it did, then when you go inverted, the low pressure would suck you to the ground, without much recourse for you as the pilot.
BTW, and this is just based upon my experiences with RC, and this is totally my opinion, but I believe my flat bottom airfoils produce much more lift at lower airspeeds than my symmetrical airfoils do. This can be seen when landing. My flat bottoms glide forever, my semisymmetrical airfoils are fairly easy to land, but don't glide near as far, and my symmetrical wings I have to "fly" to the ground.
BTW, I love debates like this. I'm not arguing. This is my kind of thing!
Also, this is by no means "my" theory, it's just the one that makes the most sense to me, considering my background and what I've been taught.
Unless they have re-written all the laws of physics and flying in the last 10 years, your wing will still stall at 16 to 18 degrees AOA no matter how much wind or thrust you put to it. Some wings vary, but they all stall. The only reason you have planes hovering is that they produce more thrust than the have wieght. The wing is not flying per say when the plane is hovering. On your trainers, the wing is made to produce higher lift. Thats why it floats. Fully symmetrical wings are faster, but don't float as well, therefore you have to fly it to the ground. Both bernouli and newtons theories are at work on most wings. Its kinda like arguing pitch versus power to hold alt and airspeed. Change one, you have to change the other.
You can argue these things all day long with people that see it only one way. Usually your arguing with people that know a little theory, but have never experienced it in the real world.
