This is the way I have set up my flap/eleveator linkage. It is fully adjustable and the rod is threaded steel rod 4-40 that I thread myself. This is not the finished product, just the setup to check for clearances. Note the notched flap.

Two notes for you, RW. Normally, the bellcrank-flap pushrod goes in the top hole. Was just looking at my Pathfinder and the elevator pushrod attaches one inch from the center and the flap pushrod out one and a quarter. Then the elevator pushrod attaches one inch from center at the elevator. So the flap and elevator move the same amount or 1:1. Check your plans-perhaps this is the way it's drawn, but it's not the usual way.

If you use the steel clevises, keep a close eye on them. They sometimes fail in CL use. Threads can fail or the clevis can open. The stresses on these are higher than in RC uses. Put a nut behind the clevis and lock it down on the threads, and secure the clevis against opening with a piece of fuel tubing slipped over the clevis. And check them regularly. I've gone to ball joints on almost everything I build.

Keep up the good work!
Kelvin

kd
I wasn't sure about the ratio, I thought that the elevator should have more deflection than the flap, say 1.5 to 1. But I will check the plans and see what they show. I really trust the clevises, but I thread all my rods and there is no slop in them. I use a split die and I open it up to give a slightly larger O.D. on the finished threads. The clevis fits better on my rods than a 4-40 nut on the same rod. Then they are LocTited with blue LocTite and never move unless I move them. I have used them on my R/C planes ever since I have been flying. My 3D plane is severely thrown around the sky and I have tried to get a failure from any of my construction but haven't. My pattern plane can reverse roll directions in an instant . I try to see if anything will break so that I will know how far to push the flight envelope and if it does then build it better.
This is not a show plane that I am building, that's for later. This is going to be used hard and often, whenever I can step out the back door and the weather is good. Here's my Twister and I'm still making a few final adjustments to it.

I thought that those pushrods looked like above average work. You've taken a good bit of trouble to get them right. I expect they'll be fine. But it doesn't hurt to ask and be sure. Hope you didn't mind.

A lot of flapped ships use elevator/flap ratios of 1:1 or close to it. All the Twisters I can remember were close to the 1:1 ratio. A ratio of 1.5:1 is fairly radical as a starting point.

The Twister is such a good plane to learn the pattern. Dumb me, I skipped from the Busters and Skyrays to a Brodak Pathfinder. But now that I'm more comfortable with it, I wouldn't want to go back. Nice bird, enough so that I'm working on a mate for the first one. Gotta get my square manuevers under control this summer.
Kelvin

kd
I have excellent travel on flap and elev. and they have no resistance. Turn the plane over and they will fall that way. So if I have 1 1/2 inches of movement in up and down mode on my elevator I should have the same on the flaps,right? I made sure when I set the moving parts that I had plenty of travel. All surfaces have enough freedom to go almost vertical in up or down position without binding. My 3D plane has almost 3 inches of travel each way on the elev. and I have to gear my thinking toward C/L. It IS different from the R/C world in the control surfaces department. Have things thawed out in Minnesota yet? It's snowing now here. I'll check everything out when I get to the house and make some adjustments. I had a Buster and a Shoestring Stunter in the early 70's and they were great fliers. And about every Ringmaster made in the 60's. Oh, a quick question and you might know. Who makes the best quality kits in your opinion? This kit was so much fun I want to get started on another. Instead of spending 200-300 dollars on just the radio equipment for another R/C, i think I had rather put that money into a really good kit.

I use a somewhat different idea behind setting up the elevator/flap ratios. On initial flights I set the flaps for absolute minimum movement (zero in fact) and do the first trimming flights using only elevator. In these flights I just check for wings level upright and inverted, enough tip weight etc before going into loops and squares. I use these to set elevator travel to get the feel I want combined with sharpness of square corners. Elevator movement usually comes out at +-17 degrees or thereabouts.

Once that's set I concentrate on looking for any trace of stalls in hard turns and they always show up in the last corner of the triangle and hourglass. This means more lift is needed so then I'll start setting the flaps to barely move. Each flight I'll increase flap movement until there's no trace of a stall in the tightest of turns then leave them. My flaps move about +-5 degrees but the model has a very light wing loading.

The point about using the least possible flap movement is that flaps add drag and this drag comes at the worst possible moment, just when you want to keep all the speed possible during a hard turn.

Nice looking bird! I am in awe of your bravery, if my wife found me working on our "Good Table" in the "Dining Room" I'd be eating off the workbench in the Garage!

For quality kits check out Brodaks, RSM, Walter Umland ( BuiltRight Models ), Richards Kits. There are more but I am going from memory.

I can not say I have built from all of these, but have seen either the kits or the completed planes. Get a copy of Stunt News and you will find these suppliers and other ads in it. Brodak kits are available at many hobby shops, the rest are usually obtained through mail order. LoneStar Models, Virginia Hobby Sport, Stuka Stunt Works, all have kits and supplies available. Google any of the above names and current links to their sites should show up.

Hey, RW,

Sounds great that the controls are very free. On a CL model, you don't have the servo to return the surface to neutral, so they need to be very free. But you don't need tons of throw. Try setting your control throw to about 30 degrees maximum. Huge throws will just act like brakes. My Pathfinder controls are set up for about 26 degrees of throw each way, and it will turn on a dime. If you have one of those RC throw measurement tools, that might be handy to figure out about where you are. Just don't max out the throw. Less is more.

For kits, Brodak has very good quality in a wide variety of designs. I've built several and only had a few quibbles with them. Most can be built straight from the box and be just fine. If you don't mind spending a little more for top drawer kits, see Eric Rule at RSM Distribution, Larry Richards at Richard's Kits, Randy Smith at Aero Products, and Ultra Hobby Products. When Walt Umland is making kits, they are wonderful, too. But he hasn't been doing much of late. They all have web sites, and do A#1 work.

Here's a list of most of the CL suppliers that's fun to rummage through:
http://home.att.net/~philbrown36641s5/clhomepage.html
All the kit makers are listed, I think. Let me know if you have trouble finding any of them.

What did you have in mind? Another profile? Old timer? Semi scale? Or a full-blown stunter?
Kelvin

kd
You were right about the control linkages. I changed them this morning when I got home and now have the same throws on elev and flaps. I measured them at 40 mm each way, but I will check them for degrees of movement. You suggest no more than 30, right? Sounds good to me.
Here's my experience from the past. Ringmaster and Shoestring Stunter, flew great and I had a blast with them. ( this was late 60's). Got a Nobler for Christmas from mom and dad. Built it and flew it. But it just didn't have the response that my profiles had. It seemed slow and lazy. Now that I reflect back, I think I did not have enough engine on it. The biggest I had was a McCoy 29, and it flew the Ringmaster great, 42 inch span, I think. When the barbed wire fence ate the Ringmaster, I put the 29 on the Nobler. Back then I was mowing yards for a living after school, funds were limited. (This was before I got more interested in girls)(or had a car).
I just want a top quality kit, with good wood. The Twister (SIG) was fair, but I had to buy some straight spars. I have mixed feelings about full fuselage and profile, don't really know which way to go. I have more 40 size engines, couple of 60 size, and a 90 in a four stroke. I like the 48 inch plus spans. But mostly I want a good quality kit. What is the best kit YOU have built? I am going to check out your suggestions.
Full fuselage planes are heavier than profiles so they need bigger motors. But I see where a lot of people use the 40 size on the Brodak Nobler, right? Isn't this around 52 inch span? But apparently this combination works well. Thanks for the input. I doubt I will ever compete, I just want to be able to throw the plane around the sky and have fun. I would like to spend a whole day flying, and that's hard to do with R/C.

RW, that's neat history. You sound pretty much like me-messing around as a kid. Had a Jr Ringmaster, CG Buster with a Fox Rocket 35, couple of Guillows Trainer IIs, a Veco Brave that a friend let me have. (I still have the O&R 23 that was in it.) Bunches of CG 1/2A things like the Lil Toot.

Actually, if you were to compare similar profile and full-fuse planes, all else being equal, the built-up will be lighter and stiffer. You can make fuselage sides out of 1/16th inch balsa on a 40 size stunter. Look at how much wood is in a 1/2 inch slab of balsa. I've been messing with a Brodak Fancy Pants kit. I really dislike the fuselage on that plane and am drawing a new design fuse around the wing. But anyway, I built a replacement fuselage using Tom Morris's truss method. The rear half of my test fuse (From the center of the wing aft) weighs 10 grams. Built of 1/16th sheet and 1/8th square sticks. And plenty strong.

The kits I've worked with that are great are those from Walt Umland, Larry Richards, and RSM. I haven't seen these myself, but all reports are that the Ultra Hobby, Randy Smith, and Tom Niebeur(sp?) kits are outstanding. Then there is a kit cutter named Joe Grasso. I have two of his RC kits and they are easily the best I've ever seen. Period, end of sentence. I have never, in 40 years, seen anything like his work. Amazing. The bug in the soup is that he only custom cuts small quantities. Now, a couple of us are looking for a design that we think significant enough to ask Joe to do a handfull of kits. One that we are excited about is the Steve Buso Hercules. Have a look at the Aero Products web site under plans for a small sample. If you think you might be interested, let me know and we'll keep you in the loop about our progress. Or if you have a suggestion, we'd be glad to hear it. The kits I have of his were $165-175. Not cheap, but a very good value at the price. All hand work.

Edit for the Nobler. The Nobler was designed around the Veco 31 and Fox 35 Stunt type motors. The 40s are actually overkill. They are more power than is absolutely needed for a Nobler and are heavier than the classic Fox. Not to say that a 40 Nobler isn't fine, it is. It's just not the only way to go. A light Nobler will fly pretty well on a good 25. It's likely that the wind will push it around, is all.

Regards,
Kelvin

ps I hear the Walt Umland has sold his line of kits. I can't verify that.

kd
Come to think about it, all my R/C planes have built up fuselages. My Razzle is the lightest of the corral and it is just triangulated spars, no sheeting, covered in Ultrakote. You can see thru the whole plane from the tail to the trailing edge of the wing. I think the engine and radio gear weigh more than the plane. With a 5 mph wind it has to have a little throttle to land. A few times I wondered if it was going to come down at all.
I have seen a few threads on the built up profiles, (like you mentioned), and it really looked good. You must understand, I have been out of C/L for a while and a lot has been improved on. I was just building and flying from what kits the LHS had in at the time, and I think the Nobler kit I had in '68 only cost 18 dollars. But I was a kid and having fun and wasn't in to the serious building aspect. But now I look at it a little differently. I have the PATIENCE to take time to do it right and well. Aftre raising 3 kids you learn it or go crazy. I'm going to check out the Aero Prod. site and see what you referred to. Thanks for the help. I am ready to fly. Twister is ready and two R/C craft are on the charger. More snow yesterday, 3 inches. May have to make some skis.

Geez, you have more snow in Kentucky than we have in SE Minnesota. Ours keeps melting the day after it falls. At least we've had enough to keep the summer from being so dry.

kd
Found the web site okay but no information on Steve Buso's HERCULES, only a price for plans. I looked at Brodak's VECTOR 40 and it looks pretty good along with their LEGACY 60. RSM's site is good but most of theirs are Old Time Stunt. Aren't these tried and true designs? Most of them won Nats in the 50's and 60's. But I am interested in the Hercules. Someone must have a picture of it somewhere. I would like to see one.
Does anyone use the quick fill fuel valves on the full fuselage planes? I'm sure you know what it is. I have them on all my R/C stuff and it makes fueling simple and quick. No messing with lines and all. I think you talked me into a built up fuselage kit. All that will have to come later, I need to get the TWISTER in the air.

Hey RW,
Yeah, I know. I wish Randy had a little more info on his site. But Steve's designs come highly recommended. Like I say, Keith and fell in love with the line of the ship and may have some kits cut yet. In fact, I should get on the phone to Randy and order those plans tomorrow.
But in the mean time, the Legacy and Vector are both highly rated birds. Keith flies a Legacy with a Saito 56 and the nose shortened an inch to balance the heavier motor. Mike Pratt (he designed the Magnum for SIG) flew it and said that it was nearly perfect. Ditto on the Vector. I have a kit stashed away with a Stuka Stunt Works Magnum 36 for power.
My wife was kind enough to get me a Saito 56 for Christmas and I think the Herk might be a good home for it. I'll scratrch around for a picture. I can't recall seeing one lately.
I expect you could use the quik-fills, but nearly everyone I know, including some top drawer flyers, still use the old-fashioned syringe. I think it is a result of needing to watch fuel quantities carefully for flying the pattern. But for sport flying, it isn't critical.

RW, I'm sorry. I was thinking the drawing of the Hercules was on Randy's site. It's not. Someone sent it to me via SSW. The black one in the photo is a Cascade. Let's see if I can upload them. OK, looks like they made it. Also, see: http://www.clstunt.com/htdocs/dcforu...ID1/12520.html

kd
These are really good looking designs. I'm impressed with them. They may be above the building level I'm ready to tackle. What do most people cover and finish their planes with? I have used Ultrakote for years and really like it. I can remember using the silkspan and doping it, but the odor is a major drawback. Some of these paint (?) schemes are gorgeous, but is it paint or film?
I am going for a full fuselage kit this next time. I just have to figure out which.

Wow, it's hard to draw any conclusions about covering and finishing anymore. Silkspan and Brodak dope are still very popular. This is a great product, with the usual limits of dope as far as odor, drying time, and shrinking are concerned. But boy, does a good dope finish look good! There is also a covering called PolySpan that is a sort of iron-on silkspan (or you can dope it on.) It is much stronger than silkspan, but a little harder to work with. I use it quite a bit.

Ultrakote and Monokote are popular. A lot of folks (including me) paint the fuselage and cover the wing and stab with ****kote of some kind. I often use spray can Rustoleum for this type finish. Quick, cheap, and can look very good.

I use a lot of carbon fiber veil as a base on solid wood instead of silkspan. With dope, it makes a tremendously stable base for paint.

Then auto paint is pretty popular. A zillion colors, quick drying, excellent finish. The primer is great, too. Some guys use the spray can touch-up paint called DupliColor. Seems OK. I've only used it a little.

Over at Stuka Stunt Works forum, there is a ton of info on all of these. More than I can ever repeat quickly. How's that for a quick survey?

Oh, and here's a pretty nice collection of photos:
http://community.webshots.com/user/inferalanding

Those are some awesome looking paint jobs. I used the Rustoleum on the fuse and tailfeathers, and Ultrakoted the flaps and wing. I primered the wood and sanded almost back to the wood before painting, but there is still some balsa grain showing. But I just wanted to get the Twister finished and in the air as quick as I could. I hope to put a lot of miles on it this spring. I guess I built it as my trainer, if you can call it that. Thanks for all your input, it's been a big help, mostly in the fine tuning. If weather is good, I'm going to try to fly this weekend. I do check the other forum out regularly and keep up with the posts there. Rootbeard "Fancherized" his Twister, I think, and I have been keeping up with his posts.
Oh yeah, what about CG for the Twister? All I have read say move it forward from what the plans call for. I am right in the ball park on it and only have to change mufflers to move it around. With the big factory muffler, (85 grams), CG is forward. With my tongue muffler I made, (20 grams), CG is about where the plans call for, about on the wing spar. And I guess set my leadouts a little forward of the wing spar to start off with. What do you think? Better noseheavy than tailheavy, right? I know it will fly, I may just have to play around with things for a while.

Dang, RW, I wish we could go flying with you. We're watching a storm front that is supposed to dump 6-10 inches of wet white on us by Saturday night. Maybe it will be good enough to go fly indoor RC by Sunday, but CL is shot for the weekend.

Yeah, I'd put the stock muffler on for the first flights. Better a little nose heavy, for sure. When you get comfortable with it, swap to the lighter muffler and see how it is with the CG back. If it's too touchy, you can try narrowing the line spacing at the handle. We need to find the flight trimming chart for you. I'll hunt up a link.

Some rules of thumb for CG's are: about 15% of the mean chord for flapless planes, about 20% for the Twister. Designs with flaps and long tail moments go back as far as 30%. The long tail makes them stable enough to be flyable.

I would also set the leadout guide so the centerpoint between the leadouts is about 1/4 to 1/2 inch behind the CG. This compensates for the sag in the flying lines. You know how the lines are never straight, but hang back from the drag? The idea is to end up with plane flying tangent to the circle, neither yawed in or out. The yaw creates tons of drag and hurts line tension. That's why no one uses much rudder offset anymore, like all the old plans showed. It just causes yaw and drag problems. I set all my rudders dead ahead and use only the tiniest bit of engine offset. That's pretty standard practice.

Well, got to start getting ready for work tonight. Catch you later.
Kelvin

Hah! It was on the PAMPA web site. This chart was developed by Paul Walker, and is kind of the basic guide to the whole stunt trimming art.

Darn, it isn't readable. Try this instead: http://www.control-line.org/DesktopD....aspx?tabid=25

kd
I got the chart printed off of the pampa website okay. The one thing I can't do is adjust my spacing on my handle. I made it on the mill here at work and it is adjustable but not the spacing. It's high impact nylon. It won't break and the stranded lines in it are .043. But you're talking basically about leverage, move the lines closer together and you cut down on the throws because of less travel with the same wrist action. I'll try to get another shot of my handle in the morn when I get home, this is the back view showing my adjustment setscrews. My other pic came out at 1,186 kb and won't load. How this happened, I don't know, so I'll try another later. My resolution must have got changed on the camera. We are supposed to have decent weather for the weekend, so I'm going to try some flights.

That's a great looking handle! There is probably a small market out there.....I have been using the Ted Fancher type handle. I bought one from Ted and then a couple more from Carl Shoup after he took over making them. It's a laser cut wood handle with sheet steel tabs the lines attach to. I should send you a copy of Ted's instruction sheet for using the handle. It's a real eye-opener about the importance of the right handle correctly adjusted.

Well, it has been snowing steadily here since midnight and is expected to continue until noon tomorrow. At one point we were getting 2-3 inches per hour. It took two of us 45 minutes to shovel our one car driveway. Plus the wind is 15 to 30 miles per. Welcome to spring!

60 degrees or so today here. Here is a pic of the other side of my handle. Got the camera sorta figured out. I will be getting a better handle, or one that is more adjustable. A lot of the handles I have seen just didn't look that good, but again, I have been out of the picture for a while.

I know what you mean about shoveling. I used to shovel a 2 car wide driveway all the way to the road and it is not any fun. Supposed to have rain moving in saturday here so am waiting to see what I can do about flying this weekend.

Here's one of my R/C birds.