sgt peanut; just for grins, could you explain you landing pattern/approach?

Let me 'splain a little better about "spoilers". Those are control surfaces or wing features that can be changed in flight - as in on final approach to reduce lift. What you are doing by manually adjusting the aileron linkage is a more permanent adjustment. Always do such things small increments. If you raise them enough to create turbulance you may find them tearing away from the wing at higher speeds. That is ALWAYS a bad thing.

Think about what is going on. By lifting both of the ailerons you have changed the chord of the wing. It has a similar effect to decreasing the angle of incedence/attack of the wing - thereby reducing lift.

Another way to slow a floating model for landing is to drop to a prop with less pitch. This adds some drag at idle speed. Like downshifting in a car and using the engine for braking effect.

You're into one of the joys of modeling now: futzing. Making adjustments and changes that effect the way a model behaves. But again, I recomend small changes and make them one-at-a-time so you can see better the effect. Aad remember: 50% of changes make things worse. That's simple statistics and the primary reason to make small changes.

fly thayt )*^%& in newbie or slightly less newbies will make fun of you on open forum on various online mags.

I'm not sure what you mean to say.

OK just for grins my approach is as follows: Fly the plane level parallel to my landing strip at approximately 6-8 meters high and reduce throttle to half. Turn the plane around 20-30M away from the landing strip aligning it with the runway and heading into the wind, reduce throttle to idle. Glide down to the landing strip making small throttle adjustments to prevent stalling. Pull up briefly before touchdown to reduce speed even further and to get a postie attitude (so the plane does not noseplant) Touchdown, and the plane flips over.

The plane has a battery hatch, which happens to be the only place the battery will fit, the weight that the plane comes with is insufficient to balance it out, or perhaps i dont know where to put it. I could rip off the glued cockpit and create some kind of closing hatch to put the battery farther back in there, but i would like to exhaust all alternatives before i start ripping things off my plane.

I will disassemble the rudder and elevator assembly today to see if i could fit that lead weight somewhere far aft, i am reluctant though, putting that part of the plane back together is a royal pain

First figure out where the weight needs to go to balance the plane by just setting the weight on the outside of the plane and seeing if it balances. Then, once you know where it goes to balance the plane, put it there permanently, either inside or outside the plane. Inside looks better, but outside functions the same and is easier to install.

Ok i have done exactly as you said Allfat. The weight is now as far back as the geometry of the plane would allow (on the inside) and the plane balances perfectly. On the bottom of the wing there are 2 lines in between which the manufacturer suggests the COG should be. Mine is now right in the middle of them.

I am eager to test fly however i will not be able to for a while, I do not want to test fly it at my park because if it breaks on landing again i can not determine if it was the plane or the grass. I will try to go to a nearby empty parking lot, but i cant tell you when that will happen its too far to walk and my parents are not home to give me a drive. I am also going camping for the weekend, i will try my best to test fly as soon as possible.

If there is anything else left to add before i fly it please do so.
Thanks for all the input and help

An interesting thread this.
Just my tuppence worth immediately:- I tend to find the culprit for floaty touchdowns is too fast an idle and/or a propellor with too high a pitch . IN GENERAL.

I hold a full-size pilots licence and I like my models to have some recognisable characteristics of full-size aircraft.
My primary concern is longitudinal stability. The easy test for this is to stall the aircraft at altitude. Does the nose drop as the speed bleeds off so that you have to apply more up-elevator?
If the answer is yes, then the aircraft is logitudinally stable (at low speed). It doesn't have to be much, just some, is all.
This helps during the approach.
Light aircraft technique is to exploit the secondary effects of throttle and elevator by way of longitudinal stability so that ON THE APPROACH, rate of descent is controlled by throttle and airspeed is controlled by elevator (trim). Approach speed is usually 1.6 times the stalling speed or thereabouts, so WELL AWAY FROM STALLING.
Because we don't have instruments and we can only estimate the wind speed relative to the models stalling speed, I like to set up the circuit so that the plane is flying with the throttle set midway and the throttle trim set toward minimum (so that when the throttle is closed, the engine is at slow idle). I then allow the model to stabilise in airspeed by flying it level, using elevator trim. As the model turns base leg, I reduce the throttle by one or two clicks only and allow the model to descend, maintaining the same attitude. This equates to the model having the same airspeed. Because the model is in trim, only gentle aileron input usually is required just to line the model up and trickle down the approach. Because the throttle trim is already set to low, as the model is above the threshold, I close the throttle and flair simultaneously. The act of raising the nose washes off speed and closing the throttle to slow idle at the same time keeps the descent going, so the model usually just settles straight on.
Things to avoid when using this technique are premature flairing and general pitch changes during the approach, usually diving for the threshold "trying to avoid a stall". this just results in your airspeed being all wrong just at the point when it should be "just right". Trainers will approach at about a fast jogging speed, so any headwind will make this look very slow.
In preference, I like to stand close to the touchdown point during the approach, so that I can get a good idea of the model's direction and descent path (like, "is it heading for my feet?") but many fields won't permit this, herding us together into flightlines or pilot pounds so that we don't hit each other.

Now, this all doesn't work if the model is neutally stable in pitch, because all that happens when you close the throttle is that the model continues on its way, just slowing down until it stalls, so it has to be controlled in attitude constantly. Consequently there's a tendecy to apply unintentional aileron input when controlling the elevator during the approach and it results in less accuracy in the touchdown phase.

Do not scoff at the suggestion to have both ailerons slightly up at neutral. This will often tame down a plane and make it much easier to land. It won't cost you anything to try and I'm quite sure you will find that it helps correct your problem of fast approaches.

If he had to add weight to the tail to balance it, this means that it was nose-heavy. This in itself can result in hot landings. I think that balancing the plane properly will probably fix the problems he is having.

what plane is it? Post a pic, there are some planes out there that are faster in the glide than others just do to how they are built.

Allfat, balancing the plane "properly" made it worse. I just came back from a test flight with the manufacture's recommended COG.... the plane was so tail heavy it stalled on takeoff and fell onto the right wing. So now im missing a wing, going to repair it later today.

The weight is definitely coming out, im putting the COG back to where it was initially.
Going to try spoilers next.

I must say this whole experience with this plane has been very discouraging, im having doubts about pursuing rc aviation.

psb667 you can find the pics of my plane here:
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_88...mpage_2/tm.htm
note it no longer has a 3 bladed prop, its flying a 2 bladed with the same pitch and length

How are you testing the CG? How far back is the suggested CG on the wing?

If the plane is balanced correctly, it will fly. Without any information on what plane you have, I can't give any other advice than what the manufacturer suggests. I sure hope you aren't blaming your crash on me, because that would be silly. Everyone in this thread told you to balance the plane. If the manufacturer gave you a bogus CG point, then that is their fault. I gave the advice I did because it sounded like it would help the conditions you are describing.

Another thing to make sure to check is that your elevator throw is within the recommended range. If you go to take off and pull too much elevator, what you are describing can happen as well, even if the CG was perfect. Is there a club nearby that could help you out with your plane? Having someone there to actually look it over and maybe even fly it would be worth a lot to you.

One thing you could do to kind of make RC a little more exciting is get a better beginner plane. The corsair is usually a fairly advanced plane, and since I don't know the manufacturer of the one you have, I don't really know how advanced it is. Something like a Hobbyzone Supercub is a really good beginner plane and it will get you up in the air for sure. Once you are excited about RC and learned a little more, then you can tackle that corsair and fly the heck out of it.

Spoilers are not going to improve that plane....

The real Corsair was notorious for snap rolling on the inattentive pilot.

It was designed with a degree of instability ( note the location of the rudder so far forward ), to enable it to snap out of plane, when being chased by a Zero.

It appears that you are trying to correct some characteristics that are intrinsic to the Corsair airframes.

As Allfat suggested, these same quirks make the Corsair ill suited to a beginner and even difficult for an intermediate flyer.

Consider putting it away for the moment, and work on a plane more suitable to your experience level.

Allfat, please do not think i blame you or anyone for the crash, it is purely my fault and maybe the manufacturers a little. My feelings towards the members of this discussion are absolutely positive. I test the CG bu placing the plane on a stick and marking where it balances, then measuring how far back my mark is from the leading edge of the wing.

I also feel compelled to add that i have the hobbyzone supercub, Ive had it for 2 years and i can fly it perfect and i can land it perfect. It is a very fun and exiting plane. I got the corsair (made by Art-Tech available on www.nitroplanes.com) to challenge my flying skills and move on to a more capable plane, however i might have bit off a bit more than i can chew.

I do feel like i should set it aside for the time being and get a slightly less capable airplane as opjose suggested.
Can someone please direct me to a more stable airframe, or at least name some characteristics to look for in a new airframe. I am not on a tight budget however i do not wish to spend a lot of money, I will attempt to remove the electronics from the corsair and migrate them to whatever my next plane will be.

Well then, it seems my advice to getting a good beginner plane is wasted on you. As far as a nice stable flyer, I would have to recommend the parkzone T-28 Trojan. I used to have one before I accidentally crashed it into a tree, but I miss that plane because it was so much fun. It is very capable of aerobatics, I had mine down to being able to knife edge the whole length of the field in just a couple of months of flying it, as well as very forgiving if you do have a crash. I broke it many times and usually just a little CA and I was back in the air.

This may seem counter-intuitive, but I have also heard that the parkzone Corsair fly's very similarly to the Trojan, so that might be an option as well if you still want to try a corsair. I have not flown the Corsair, so I can't say first hand, but I have read on RCU that it is very similarly flying than the Trojan.

Also, no worries about the misunderstanding, it is sometimes hard to know if words are hostile when they are typed. I thought I may have sensed some hostility, so I figured I would call you out and explain myself, but since there was no hostility, no problems. I hope you have success with whatever plane you choose, and even if you keep this one. I would hate to have you leave the hobby for something like this. Good luck!

the parkzone trojan doesn't come in kit version does it? and if it does can it take a brushless motor?

I think it comes in a RTF and a Plug and Play version. The PNP only needs a lipo battery, receiver, and transmitter added to it. It comes with a brushless motor.

yes i just looked at it on horizon hobby. Looks very nice, also looks like i could put the corsair electronics into it. Its also quite pricey. I will consider it if i cant find anything cheaper, or perhaps just an airframe.

Are GWS airframes any good? Alfa models? I was thinking of an Alfa LA7 it brings back a sense of patriotism (Im Russian)

Thanks for all your help yet again.

Sometimes advice is wasted if the guy receiving the advice doesn't apply it correctly. There is no magic involved with finding a flyable CG point on paper for any plane, it's just an easy to learn skill that anyone can do. Once learned, you don't need the factories' CG point for anything else but a reference to check your calculations with.
If you had the control throws cranked way up to horse around a nose heavy plane, then didn't reduce the throws after the CG was corrected, then there you go......splat.

Got some more questions. this one sound bad so dont take it personnally do iether of the wheels have sticky points when they roll?

dont be discouraged that thing is hard to land in grass might even be impossible the grass wich is attached to the dirt wont let the wheel do its job and turn its like it hits a parking block. Try a local park baseball diamond or a local schools land on the diamond in the dirt and see if it noses over. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz-1aoj8IoY

none of the wheels have sticky points, the control throws were left at factory default i did not tamper with them, and i never input full throws anyways, i try to do gentle liftoffs and elegant turns, im not really into aggressive flying.

Now that i look at the plane more closely, i notice that the control throws are currently in their lowest position, and ailerons are not adjustable at all. The only way i can adjust throws is by changing the position of the push rod on the control surface, and i cant make the throws less than what they already are.

Unfortunately i don't have a local baseball diamond, and all of the nearby parking lots and paved areas are riddled with lamp posts and other tall fixtures that i am reluctant to fly around.

I will give the corsair another try, after i actually get it balanced.

I'm not sure which Corsair you have. If it is the ParkZone 41 inch model it should fly OK at 30 ozs....assuming that this "RTF" model is built stiff enough to hold it's shape in the air.

I would weigh the plane on a scale that reads in ounces and then evaluate the next move.

One of my buddys has a gws corsair about that same size I dont know how it lands yet as my 2yr old tried to catch it while it was coming in on the maiden and I had to ditch. We are flying it again in the am. Are there jogging paths at your park? also your guts will all fit in a $35 ez from gws or one of the biplane kits or if you go to the sig manufacturing site they might have a kavan blue devil left $90 this model flys very well and has some style. if not check the auction block and get something in a high wing for cheap and bolt in your stuff and fly the heck out of it for awhile then wreck it good and start flying the corsair again.