RE: Flaperons?
 

I forgot to mention. That vertical flat spin you mentioned? I do that with my ukies. :)

RE: Flaperons?
 

ok i didnt bother reading all the posts so this might have been said. i have the 6exa. to have flaperons you have to plug one aileron into ch1 and the other into ch6 and you have to activate the "flp" or something like that mix on the tx. this makes the ailerons work normally, but when you move the flaps knob the ailerons both move down, creating more lift in the wing and also raising the nose. they still function as ailerons but they are just in a lowered position. to make loops tighter, 3D pilots like to mix the elevator(master) with the flaps (flaperons)(slave). when they pull up to do a loop, the tail is pushed down AND the wing is pushed up, therefore increasing the tightness of the loop. this is usually for 3D planes and i wouldnt recommend it for a trainer unless you feel like it. basically flaperons are used if you want flaps but your plane only has ailerons. some planes, like the ultra stick, come with flaps and ailerons, so all you need to do is plug the two aileron servos into a y connector and plug that into ch1. then plug the flaps into a y connector and plug that into ch 6. if you have flaps and ailerons on your plane you don't need to use the flaperon mix. since the nose is lifted when the flap(erons)s are applied, some pilots also mix the flap(erons)(master) with the elevator(slave), so that when the flaps are applied, the elevator moves down slightly to correct the lifted nose. but for your plane, use the first method i described with one aileron in ch1 and the other in ch6. hope this helps

RE: Flaperons?
 

HI THERE ELECTRICFAN! You summed it up pretty well. I think elevator coupled to flaps can be dialed in to be gentle but all the field programmability that is available can get a guy in trouble, I speak from first hand white knuckle experience[X(]! I've always looked at this control function as a way to make a plane both easier to handle and also more aerobatic.

RE: Flaperons?
 

OK, how about a decent quotable source?

Mike McConville on "Flying the FuntanaS 3D .40" says:

"I've played around with using coupled spoilerons for several years to enhance the 3D capability of some models.

I have always used a coupled flap mix in my transmitter to do this, so when I flip the switch on my transmitter, the spoilerons move whenever I move the elevator stick. (elevator up, ailerons up and vice versa). Sometimes this isn't beneficial when making small elevator movements, but it does help when you get to "3D" deflections of around 40 degrees.

Then Seba clued me in on the setup he uses. Instead of using a flap mix, you have to use a curve type mix like you find in the JR 8103 and 10X systems. Set the elevator channel at the master, and the flap as the slave (you're already using flapperon mix for the two aileron servos, right). Set a curve so the ailerons don't move until the elevator stick is about 75% toward the stop in each direction….. "Snap-spoilerons." This allows you to turn on the mix yet have no spoileron movement until you really need it. On the FuntanaS, this really helps some maneuvers look much better and more controlled."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So there you go, you are not using flaperons, you are using "coupled spoilerons". If you're really clever you might even be using "Snap-spoilerons"

You can find a whole series of 3D articles on the HH site....

RE: Flaperons?
 

I agree with the above posting. Flaperons are ailerons used as flaps to increase the wing incidense. Spoilerons are ailerons used as spoilers to decrease the wing incidense. When used in conjunction with elevators, they are just coupled, or slaved flaperons or coupled, or slaved spoilerons. They are coupled flaperons, when they go in opposite direction of elevator (elevator causes an increase in angle of attack and flaperons causes an increase in wing incidense, or vice versa). They are coupled spoilerons when the opposite takes place.
The reason for calling an uncoupled flaperon just that, flaperon, and not just flaps, is that it uses the flaps for this function (full wing length or not) but do not lose the aileron function.
If it is on a tail less delta plane, it is called elevons, and the mix would be on all the time to control roll and pitch.
DKjens

RE: Flaperons?
 

Let me tell ALL of you what is REALLY funny.

Let's take model cessna and look at it......Pilot wants to make a scale looking approach/landing. Wing only has AILERONS. Need to slow the thing way down but can't without creating more lift. .......need flaps right!! So you use the radio and program FLAPERONS

Now let's look at my favorite, a 40% EDGE......Pilot wants to do an awesome harrier from way high or maybe a radical snap into a wall or maybe even really ugly waterfalls. Really need that thing to be stable.......need flaps right!!! So you use the radio and program FLAPERONS/SPOILERONS


Somehow this has become a debate of who's right or wrong about flaperons, the 3D guys or the funfly guys or the scale guys..........FACT of the matter is, to some degree you are all right. Do you think that the CESSNA gives a hoot about doing harriers?....DOUBT it.....he just wants to slow down and stay in the air. The cessna will use throttle and some elevator to control pitch, but the elevator MAY OR MAY NOT move opposite the flaps.

You are all correct. As with ANYTHING REAL, it evolves. It doesn't matter what this word was when it came about, it only matters what it is NOW.....Don't you remember when the word AIN'T wasn't a word and couldn't be font in ANY dictionary? Well it is there now.

RE: Flaperons?
 

If I am reading your post correctly, then what you are saying is that I can pull anything out of thin air, say it, and that makes it "partly true?" So I can suddenly start claiming that Flaperons include rudder and retractable landing gear in the definition?

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that. The only reason I'm still taking part in this ridiculous discussion is because we need fewer people in this hobby spreading bad information - not more. It's no wonder nobody takes us seriously when we have people who try to have intelligent discussions with people WHO DO know what they're talking about and come off sounding like a ignorant fools.

This is a beginners column which presumably means that beginners come here to get information. I think it's important that the information they get is correct.

I and others have presented plenty of evidence as to what flaperons are. Two people who stand steadfastly by their definition have offered nothing to the contrary other than making claims about "what most of the r/c world thinks" and what "top flyers say."

Fact: Flaperons are a mix of Flap and Ailerons. Nothing more.

Fact: The use of flaps often requires elevator mixing for trim or aerobatic purposes. This is an entirely separate mix and has nothing to do with flaperons.

RE: Flaperons?
 

I posted this in the another place on the net where there are a lot of experts and pro pilots. CAPtain232 frequents the site and weighed in on the issue as well. I would take what he says very seriously b/c being a custom builder that gets paid for working on models he better know his stuff. I think CAPtain232 hit the nail on the head with what he has said.

Flapperons have more than one definition. In the text book and in the R/C world prior to 3D then CafeenMan would be correct and is still correct for certain types of flying. However, a lot of the 3D anf funfly crowd has redefined Flapperon by mixing in elevator with the Flapperons. My guess is we stole the term from the scale crowd. If you notice when a fullscale comes in to land his flaps are DOWN and when he flairs he Pulls back and his elevator goes UP. My theory on the 3D orgin of the word is that since the ailerons are down and elevator is up and we dont have flaps on our planes then we will just call this flapperons.

tiggerinva,
Notice what Mike said when he defined spoileron. Ailerons UP Elevator UP. That doesnt define what we call it when Ailerons are UP and Elevator is DOWN.

If you are just old fashioned and dont want to budge on what you define flapperons as then go for it. But the technology of new radio systems have allowed us to redefine it for a certain type of flying.

RE: Flaperons?
 

Being a custom builder makes a person an expert? Woo Hoo! I'm an expert! :D

RE: Flaperons?
 

Hopefully ICEMAN gained some useful info here. He gained a lot of info from the literalists, but none of their feedback gave him the advise that he was seeking. I doubt if he could care less about the literal definition of flaperon. He isn't flying some weighed down, wallowing, scale job that would be better off as a static display at the museum of bondo and epoxy, he is flying a sport model and wants to make it more fun. Hopefully, the time that I took with him to explain how to mount his servos and how to configure his controls will expand his enjoyment of the hobby.

RE: Flaperons?
 

I absolutely agree with you on this one CombatPigg regaring the thread being hijacked and steared away from the original point. I apologize for my part in that. I'm not sure where you're getting the scale thing though. I haven't ever put flaperons on anything but a sport model.

Here are a couple links from my site that might be helpful for those who want to install flaperons.

The first has a section describing how they actually affected the flight characteristics of the plane and some things to look out for.

http://www.airfieldmodels.com/galler...k_30/index.htm

The second shows a way to mount the servos outboard in the wing. I think in this case it would be easiest to just mount them side by side as I believe has already been suggested, but this method will provide a stiffer control setup.

http://www.airfieldmodels.com/inform...ruction/07.htm

RE: Flaperons?
 

CafeenMan....

I agree that the NEWBIES need correct information. PERSONALLY I would define FLAPERONS as a COMPUTER MIX to force the ailerons to act as both FLAP and AILERONS. BUT this would be MY interpretation. As times have changed, this one word has come to mean several things and it all depends on what you fly......Ask some of the GLIDER PILOTS what they call FLAPERONS, then ask 3D guys and then SCALE.....you might get 3 different answers. If I remember correctly, you are more of an AEROBATIC/3D pilot.....this would explain why you would consider FLAPERONS to be just what I stated in the second sentence of this post. You can either go with a TECHNICAL DEFINITION or an APPLICATION DEFINTION....you seem to have chosen the TECHNICAL

RE: Flaperons?
 

Captain - Actually I'm a terrible pilot. Many years of flying R/C and a 12 y/o kid can fly my socks off. My main interest is in design and building. One guy thinks I fly scale lead-sleds and you think I'm a 3D pilot. Boy would the first guy be offended to think I'm one of him. :D I just fly whatever I feel like depending on what survived the last time I flew it. :)

Look, I'm really not trying to be stubborn here, but I am convinced that the definition of I know to be flaperons is correct. As I said previously I have never - not once - before heard of anyone claiming that elevator and aileron is flaperon mixing or that elevator is part of flaperons. Elevator may be mixed in, but with or without the elevator, the flaperons stand alone as their own entity.

I did an extensive web search to find if there is any validity to their claims and did not find anything to suggest that flaperon mixing is anything other than flap and aileron mixing. I posted several links from this search. No evidence to the contrary has been produced. If I'd found evidence that my definition is wrong then I would have posted it. It's more important to me to know the right answer than for me to be right.

If anyone can produce a credible source that shows flaperon is something other than what I have said it is, I would like to see it. Nobody has done that yet. As far as I'm concerned the practical, technical, application, pre-historic and post-modern definitions of flaperon is flap/aileron mixing. An INCORRECT (not by my standards, but by aerospace, "most r/cers", and all web references I found) yet extremely obscure definition pulled out of thin air by a small sampling of fliers seems to include elevator as part of flaperon mixing.

Trust me, this isn't personal. It's just not compelling me to see things differently. Show me a source. Show me anything that says elevator is a fundamental element of flaperons (typos in Futaba manuals don't count).

OK, I'm off to do something productive or educational - hopefully both.

RE: Flaperons?
 

Wouldent the flap-elevator mix thing be called a flaperatore?

RE: Flaperons?
 

Man this ones a long read.:(

I'm on the side of the fence that had been suggested as being technically defined.

The "Flaperon" mixing function uses two servos to individually control two ailerons, combining the aileron function with the flap function function via a single programmable mix.

End of story for me. I have never seen FLAPERONS defined by variable standards for various types of flying.

As mentioned by others it is often required to effect an additional mix to control pitch changes when "Flaperon" is activated, same goes for actual flap empanages. This is known as Elev-Flap mixing and requires a second mix. This is an entirely different function and mix... Since this is an additional mix and has an additional name or function it only makes sense to me it's not technically a part of FLAPERONS.

I think for the most part 3D guys don't use flaperons/spoilerons and such (maybe I should qualify my assertion Giant Scale 3D guys don't use this function much if at all). In any event its pilot and model dependent.

RE: Flaperons?
 

I think thats some italian wine...[sm=lol.gif].....maybe we could call it flap-my-vator:D

RE: Flaperons?
 

Elevaps?

RE: Flaperons?
 

mglavin,
In case you haven't seen my posts, then FYI I'm on your side of the fence.
However, I think the statement above is false. If you look at post 54 you'll see that I've included a quote from Mike McConville on Flying the FuntanaS 3D .40. He uses what he calls coupled spoilerons and snap spoilerons.
I do agree though, that the mixes used will be model dependent. For example, on models that have two elevator servos, I've heard that the elevators can be used to work in conjunction with the ailerons to increase the roll rate. Would this be "coupled elevons"? I've not heard that term used, so maybe I should copyright it :D

So, my point of view is that many 3D/aerobatic guys might use all sorts of coupled mixes to facilitate certain maneuvers, but they are either too lazy to assign a proper name to the mix or want to keep their 'magic' radio programming a secret thus reverting to the ambiguous (incorrect) term flaperons....

RE: Flaperons?
 

[quote]ORIGINAL: tiggerinva

I think full scale jets use this and it's called Ailervators. I'm not positive but I'm pretty sure that's what it's called when elevators are coupled to ailerons to increase roll rate.

RE: Flaperons?
 

Good God! This thread is brutal!

But for what it's worth....I vote for flaperons = flaps and ailerons, no matter who is talking about it or what their model flying experience is. HOWEVER, having said that, and being an experienced full-scale pilot - when you activate the flaps, the center of lift is moved and you generally want to trim the plane accordingly. So it is quite likely that an experienced 3D or whatever model RC pilot would want to add some elevator mixing as part of their flaperon activation and just consider the whole bag as "flaperons". Hence the gray-area-of-disagreement that has ensued on this post. (Can't we all just get along? [sm=RAINFRO.gif])

Hey tiggerniva, does your signature imply that you went directly from LT-40 to Funtana? If so, I'd be curious to hear about your experience in doing so.

Cheers all,
MrJB

RE: Flaperons?
 

Yup, it does although the LT wasn't really my first trainer; just the one that I eventually soloed on. The Funtana is an easy docile plane to fly when you use low rates and add some expo...

RE: Flaperons?
 

Thats it? [:o] No more ideas about Flaperons? Dang, I was hoping we were going to stretch this thread to a new record. [sm=crying.gif]





How about this, flaperons are those flaps that hang from the back of a those hats made for desert conditions!

Anyone? Please, I am begging!
[sm=lol.gif]

RE: Flaperons?
 

tigger

If you'll note I qualified my statement in that I said for the most part Giant Scale 3D guys don't use these mixes... I don't personally know any that do. You just don't need them, IMO and there illegal in competition. Now fun fly 3D guys love this stuff. BUT they need all the help they can get <VBG>.:D

Many do use corrective mixes to facilitate their models inept flight attitude! Pitch coupling in knofe edge is very common.

My thinking on all these secondary mixes is antiquated. I suggest you learn to fly through the problem areas with pilot induced correction. Believe me you'll be a much better pilot when its all said and done. Once you've mastered mixing in your own corrections via mind over model, go for the computer mixes they certainly make things easier, especially when you have other things to contemplate like the "Zoneless Box".

RE: Flaperons?
 

Can giant scale 3D ships perform climbing flat spins with out flaps coupled?I play with 3D planes that range in size between .15 and .50 and have found that no single control sceme produces the same results BUT running flaperons with the elevator coupled will produce climbing flat spins. When I'm performing stunts where having flaperons/elevators active is a nuisance, I switch it off, of course. At least 80% of the modeling community flies in a size and performance range where running flaperons coupled to the elevator is beneficial, and for those who learned about this wonderful FLAPERON MODE and are practitioners of the art of small scale 3D, Flaperons means elevators coupled out of phase with the flaps.

RE: Flaperons?
 

So even though 90% of the people who have responded to this thread do not agree with you and even though there has been plenty of evidence presented that does not agree with you and even though you have not produced one shred of evidence to back up your claims - not even the "top 3d fliers in the country" lol... you still cling to this belieft? absolutely incredible. *shakes head in disbelief* :eek: