Orine Fairchild 22
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mims, FL
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orine Fairchild 22
Folks I have an 1/4 scale Orline Fairchild 22 parasol wing aircraft, It hasn't flown worth a hoot since I got it.
You have to use a bit of rudder to make it turn, it acts tail heavy, I added some weight in the front cockpit just to see, and it flew a little better.
I was hoping someone had a set of plans or possibly knew where the CG was on this plane, I need to check the angle of the wing also, the previous owner shimmed the wing up in the front, so no telling what I have here. any help would be appreciated....Ron
Sorry guys a typo.....Orline Fairchild 22
You have to use a bit of rudder to make it turn, it acts tail heavy, I added some weight in the front cockpit just to see, and it flew a little better.
I was hoping someone had a set of plans or possibly knew where the CG was on this plane, I need to check the angle of the wing also, the previous owner shimmed the wing up in the front, so no telling what I have here. any help would be appreciated....Ron
Sorry guys a typo.....Orline Fairchild 22
Last edited by wingstrut; 12-07-2015 at 04:49 AM.
#2
My Feedback: (5)
That airplane has a constant chord wing, I think. That means that the Mean Aerodynamic Chord is the wing chord. Putting the CG at 30% of the MAC behind the leading edge will be a safe position. Having the wing at zero degrees incidence is a good starting point. That is how I set up my Champ. It flies great. I have coordinated the aileron turns by mixing in about 10% of the rudder thanks to my radio. I don't do it by hand. There are too many other things to worry about when I'm flying. Dan.
#3
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mims, FL
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is where it balances now, I must have an incidence problem, I think I'm going to block up the fuse to zero and go over everything, this thing flies terrible, matter of fact, no one in the club wants to fly it.
It's hard to explain, some of the guys say it's the way a parasol aircraft flies, BULL! when I add about four ounces of nose weight the plane flies a lot better but comes in for a landing at mach 2.
I've seen other Fairchild 22's fly and they just do fine, it's an old airplane the wing rigging isn't the greatest thing I've ever seen, maybe the wing is flexing, that is the way it flies, it's changing all the time........Dan, Thanks for the info.
I'm going to have to dig deeper........Ron
It's hard to explain, some of the guys say it's the way a parasol aircraft flies, BULL! when I add about four ounces of nose weight the plane flies a lot better but comes in for a landing at mach 2.
I've seen other Fairchild 22's fly and they just do fine, it's an old airplane the wing rigging isn't the greatest thing I've ever seen, maybe the wing is flexing, that is the way it flies, it's changing all the time........Dan, Thanks for the info.
I'm going to have to dig deeper........Ron
#4
Using rudder is the norm with this style of air frame. Some like to program the mix. I prefer to fly using the left stick in turns.
Adding weight to the cockpit isn't as effective as mounting it as forward as possible. Mount your weight as near to the firewall as possible.
The wing is shimmed for correct incidence, not to solve a balance issue. I believe this model has a flat bottom wing, with a Phillips entry. Essentially the bottom of the wing will be at 0 , but with the curved leading edge, it should read + 2 on an incidence meter.
Adding weight to the cockpit isn't as effective as mounting it as forward as possible. Mount your weight as near to the firewall as possible.
The wing is shimmed for correct incidence, not to solve a balance issue. I believe this model has a flat bottom wing, with a Phillips entry. Essentially the bottom of the wing will be at 0 , but with the curved leading edge, it should read + 2 on an incidence meter.
Last edited by TomCrump; 12-07-2015 at 05:31 AM.
#5
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mims, FL
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Tom, yes, I use left stick also, I turn all my aircraft using all the controls, they look better that way.
I was just adding weight to see how it handled, the cockpit is forward of the CG so a good testing spot for a quick reference.
Someone had shimmed the front of the wing, I need to check to see if there is too much positive, a flat bottom wing I like to set zero or a little neg, it cut's through the air a little better, not so much ballooning and such.
This wing is easy, it's constant chord, no dihedral.
I will set up and check everything, the more I think about this the more I think I may have a cabane problem causing the wing to change incidence, this thing is up and down and all over the sky, the turns create a lot of pucker power.
I have a Zenoah G-38 in it and I fly at 3/8ths to 1/2 throttle, anymore power your in trouble.
I have previously checked the airframe and controls, but have not really tugged on the wing struts, that is a big wing and it produces a lot of force, Thanks guys for the info, I will dig a little deeper.....Ron
I was just adding weight to see how it handled, the cockpit is forward of the CG so a good testing spot for a quick reference.
Someone had shimmed the front of the wing, I need to check to see if there is too much positive, a flat bottom wing I like to set zero or a little neg, it cut's through the air a little better, not so much ballooning and such.
This wing is easy, it's constant chord, no dihedral.
I will set up and check everything, the more I think about this the more I think I may have a cabane problem causing the wing to change incidence, this thing is up and down and all over the sky, the turns create a lot of pucker power.
I have a Zenoah G-38 in it and I fly at 3/8ths to 1/2 throttle, anymore power your in trouble.
I have previously checked the airframe and controls, but have not really tugged on the wing struts, that is a big wing and it produces a lot of force, Thanks guys for the info, I will dig a little deeper.....Ron
#7
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mims, FL
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Tom, I will post when I find the problem, I have flown a flying lawnmower that did better than this thing....Ha!Ha!
I hate to stop the build on my M/R Sopwith Strutter, but this is bugging me..........Ron
I hate to stop the build on my M/R Sopwith Strutter, but this is bugging me..........Ron
#9
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mims, FL
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeffo, Thanks for the info on the wing, I will make sure I don't put excess stress on it.
My servos are screwed to hard wood beams and the pushrods are just that, pushrods made from dowels and threaded rod, I will have to look at what this plane had originally I prefer pull-pull cables. no ny-rod.
This thing flies like a warbird on drugs, when I purchased it I thought it would be an easy flyer, man was I surprised when I took off the first time.
That is what I was looking for, known idiosyncrasy's pertaining to this aircraft.
I also don't want to forget to weigh it and figure what the wing loading is, Thanks for the support fellas, I will get to work this week and post what I find, I can always saw the wing in half and glue it back together with Dihedral in it, or maybe add another wing and make a bipe out of it. Ha! Ha!
My servos are screwed to hard wood beams and the pushrods are just that, pushrods made from dowels and threaded rod, I will have to look at what this plane had originally I prefer pull-pull cables. no ny-rod.
This thing flies like a warbird on drugs, when I purchased it I thought it would be an easy flyer, man was I surprised when I took off the first time.
That is what I was looking for, known idiosyncrasy's pertaining to this aircraft.
I also don't want to forget to weigh it and figure what the wing loading is, Thanks for the support fellas, I will get to work this week and post what I find, I can always saw the wing in half and glue it back together with Dihedral in it, or maybe add another wing and make a bipe out of it. Ha! Ha!
#11
My Feedback: (5)
Assuming that everything is structurally sound, you may be getting intermittent radio frequency interference from your ignition system if you are gas powered. Make sure that you have not comingled any parts of the ignition system with your receiver parts. They should be separated as much as possible. Dan.
#12
Assuming that everything is structurally sound, you may be getting intermittent radio frequency interference from your ignition system if you are gas powered. Make sure that you have not comingled any parts of the ignition system with your receiver parts. They should be separated as much as possible. Dan.
Ya, RF could cause erratic flight behavior. A range check, at 360 degrees around the model, and with the engine running, would be a good idea.
#13
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mims, FL
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's another great idea guys, always do that before the first flight, but things can change.
The 2.4 MHz receiver is approximately 18 inches from the engine, but I do have room to move it further back, probably about 22 inches.
also I do have extra receivers I'll just swap one out.
I bought a new Zenoah G-38 for it, so I'm pretty sure I don't have too much leakage from old ignition wiring.
after the first 360 check with the engine up to about half throttle and everything solid I usually wipe that from my mind, but with the plane in the air
there could be an interference, I will move the receiver to the other side also and put the antennae wires down toward the bottom of the fuse.
Thanks guys, after all this, there is nothing else to check, thanks for stirring up the cobwebs in my head.
I thought I had everything covered, but I missed something somewhere.
This airplane has to fly better than it did,..........Thanks again fellas..........Ron
PS: the battery is next to not touching the receiver, I've never heard of this causing a problem, but this is the only airplane I have that is set up this way.
The 2.4 MHz receiver is approximately 18 inches from the engine, but I do have room to move it further back, probably about 22 inches.
also I do have extra receivers I'll just swap one out.
I bought a new Zenoah G-38 for it, so I'm pretty sure I don't have too much leakage from old ignition wiring.
after the first 360 check with the engine up to about half throttle and everything solid I usually wipe that from my mind, but with the plane in the air
there could be an interference, I will move the receiver to the other side also and put the antennae wires down toward the bottom of the fuse.
Thanks guys, after all this, there is nothing else to check, thanks for stirring up the cobwebs in my head.
I thought I had everything covered, but I missed something somewhere.
This airplane has to fly better than it did,..........Thanks again fellas..........Ron
PS: the battery is next to not touching the receiver, I've never heard of this causing a problem, but this is the only airplane I have that is set up this way.
#14
bought a new Zenoah G-38 for it, so I'm pretty sure I don't have too much leakage from old ignition wiring.
after the first 360 check with the engine up to about half throttle and everything solid I usually wipe that from my mind, but with the plane in the air
there could be an interference
Try the range check at full and varying throttle levels. Maybe something will show up.
In air, when this occurs, what happens if you throttle back to idle ? If the problem disappears, it could easily be an RF issue..
after the first 360 check with the engine up to about half throttle and everything solid I usually wipe that from my mind, but with the plane in the air
there could be an interference
Try the range check at full and varying throttle levels. Maybe something will show up.
In air, when this occurs, what happens if you throttle back to idle ? If the problem disappears, it could easily be an RF issue..
#15
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mims, FL
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well fellas, I checked most everything out, the plane checked out to be a little nose heavy, not bad But I will change it.
I leveled out the fuselage and zeroed the datum line, the horizontal stabilizer is zero, it's a flying stab, so that is good, now here comes the weird part.
My building table is level with the earth, I measured and leveled the fuselage, I zeroed out my incidence meter on the table then attached it to the wing and I got 14 degrees negative incidence.
I measured from the bottom of the wing in the front and back to the table and measured that the front of the wing is positive by 1/2 inch. at the bottom of the wing.
The wing is a flat bottom wing, no taper, it does have a little dihedral.
I don't quite understand why I'm getting such a negative reading.
I can't measure under the tips of the wing, but you can see washout in the outer 15 inches of wing, the wing tips are actually negative by quite a bit you can really see it.
My incidence meter must be messed up somehow I will check and recheck, even if it's messed up I can still measure the difference between the wing tips and the wing near the center.
So basically the bottom of my wing measures 1/2 inch higher in the front than the back of the wing, I believe that is too much positive incidence for a flat bottom wing, does anyone concur or is that normal?.....Ron
I leveled out the fuselage and zeroed the datum line, the horizontal stabilizer is zero, it's a flying stab, so that is good, now here comes the weird part.
My building table is level with the earth, I measured and leveled the fuselage, I zeroed out my incidence meter on the table then attached it to the wing and I got 14 degrees negative incidence.
I measured from the bottom of the wing in the front and back to the table and measured that the front of the wing is positive by 1/2 inch. at the bottom of the wing.
The wing is a flat bottom wing, no taper, it does have a little dihedral.
I don't quite understand why I'm getting such a negative reading.
I can't measure under the tips of the wing, but you can see washout in the outer 15 inches of wing, the wing tips are actually negative by quite a bit you can really see it.
My incidence meter must be messed up somehow I will check and recheck, even if it's messed up I can still measure the difference between the wing tips and the wing near the center.
So basically the bottom of my wing measures 1/2 inch higher in the front than the back of the wing, I believe that is too much positive incidence for a flat bottom wing, does anyone concur or is that normal?.....Ron
#16
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mims, FL
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went back out to the aerodrome and reset everything and the reading I got was Right wing tip +45, the right wing near the fuse +53, the left wing tip -003, the left wing near the fuselage -014.
I found the problem, now I know why it flew so erratic, the landing gear is attached to the wing struts and it has oleo shocks, one of the support braces that support the left wing attachment for the strut broke loose.
You couldn't tell it until you pushed or pulled on it, I refastened the brace to the wing strut support temporarily until I try it out.
I rechecked the wing and got +3.5 on the left wing and +3.0 on the right wing............this I hope will straighten this mess out.
I looked at this rigging before and couldn't see anything wrong, the support piece went inside of the strut attachment so it still looked like it was attached......Ron
I found the problem, now I know why it flew so erratic, the landing gear is attached to the wing struts and it has oleo shocks, one of the support braces that support the left wing attachment for the strut broke loose.
You couldn't tell it until you pushed or pulled on it, I refastened the brace to the wing strut support temporarily until I try it out.
I rechecked the wing and got +3.5 on the left wing and +3.0 on the right wing............this I hope will straighten this mess out.
I looked at this rigging before and couldn't see anything wrong, the support piece went inside of the strut attachment so it still looked like it was attached......Ron
#17
I'm happy to hear that you discovered correctable problems.
What incidence is the stab set at ?
If I start from scratch, with undefined parameters, I check incidence by setting the airframe so the stab is at 0, and measure the wing incidence fom that setting. My feeling is that the stab is set. The wing and down thrust can be shimmed to a desired point.
Three degrees positive, on the wing,e sounds a bit much, to me. I'm definately no expert, though.
What incidence is the stab set at ?
If I start from scratch, with undefined parameters, I check incidence by setting the airframe so the stab is at 0, and measure the wing incidence fom that setting. My feeling is that the stab is set. The wing and down thrust can be shimmed to a desired point.
Three degrees positive, on the wing,e sounds a bit much, to me. I'm definately no expert, though.
#19
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mims, FL
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The stab is set zero with the fuselage, and the wing shows 3 to 3.5 positive, actual measurement is the front of the wing is 1/2 inch higher than the back. I'm thinking that is way too much also, now this would not cause my problem with the erratic flying, but the severe twist in the wing which was changing as the wing loads were changing would definitely explain a lot.
I'm going to shim up the trailing edge of the wing to set the wing at zero with the stab and see what happens.
Thank you Tom and Dan for the support on this, it had me stumped.
I will let you know what happens......Ron
I'm going to shim up the trailing edge of the wing to set the wing at zero with the stab and see what happens.
Thank you Tom and Dan for the support on this, it had me stumped.
I will let you know what happens......Ron
#20
My Feedback: (68)
I flew the old free flights out of the '30's.(rc assist).A designer,Frank Ziac used to put 7 degrees pos. incidence in the wing,you could do it,but had to put a lot more nose weight to get your model to fly right.The guy who taught me said,that's the way it was done back then.Now you set up a flat bottom air foil at zero,and your good to go.jeffo
#21
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mims, FL
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeffo, I don't know if you remember the old Jemco p-51 funscale airplanes that had a flat bottom wing, they were designed with a very positive incidence in the wing you controlled the altitude with the throttle, I know what Jim was trying to do, but that is not the way I wanted to fly an airplane, I cut out the fuselage at the rear where the wing saddle was and raised the back of the wing over 3/8ths of an inch making the wing a negative 2 degrees, that plane went from an erratic flyer to a pattern ship.....Ron