Hydro Junkie

Surprised me too. I just looked at a MKII and found it's nowhere close to that. In fact, the MKII is 2.5 down and 0 with a +.25 incidence on the wing. Maybe it shouldn't have since the Sr is 6 down and 0 with a +1.5 wing while the Seniorita takes mostly the same, that is with the exception of a 3.5 right setting

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

If I’m not mistaken the Clark Y airfoil incidence is measured by drawing a line from the center of the leading edge radius to the center of the trailing edge. Having the bottom of the wing sitting level results in about 2 degrees positive incidence. As far as thrust angles go, I would start with 3 degrees down and 2 right. Will most likely need to be adjusted depending on CG setting and power choice. A 2 stroke glow will require less right thrust, a 4 stroke a tad more, an electric will need more still. Basically, the larger the prop the more right thrust is required.

skylark-flier

Hey Ted!!!! I'm including a jpg I have that gives the set-up info on the LT40. Hope it helps.

As a side note, the instruction booklet mentions side thrust as being zero.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Makes you wonder why some airplanes require right thrust while others supposedly don’t.

tedsander

Now my head hurts! The website does say 6 and 6. But the above is 6 and 0! In the end, it is a trainer, and I'm the instructor mostly flying it, so can cope if it is a bit off. Worst case, I use my fancy radio to mix throttle to elevator and/or rudder, if the amount of wedges/washers behind the engine get silly. I really, really like a properly trimmed plane. But if I have to be "improper" with this one, so be it. It's already had 3 serious crashes that many would bin it for.
Just finished repairing/rebuilding the NIB HB .40 that was in it for the last crash.....not a powerhouse of an engine, but ran like a clock, and super duper light!
The life of a club trainer can be hard!

tedsander

Rhetorical question? Somewhere in my huge stack of aerodynamics books and articles I have lots of references to people trying to explain "why?". There's a lot of math and graphs.....

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Yes we can get quite technical on the forces that influence the nose of our airplanes to the left. At the end of the day just adjusting in a little right thrust takes care of it provided the pilot feels it needed. Some guys aren’t bothered that they drift to the left on take off or loops that corkscrew.

tedsander

Not to stray too off topic, but many of us are familiar with the "Kougar Hop" (Hey, it's a Sig plane, so kinda related to the main topic!)
On takeoff the pilot had to maintain a significant amount of right rudder to keep it straight. Then it would jump left if the rudder was not slowly relaxed long after takeoff....Most noticeable on those that had a .61 with a pipe (that everyone put on it!), rather than the .40 called for.....

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Yep. A big cause of that is the down pitch couple with rudder application. Since there was no right thrust it would veer off left, right rudder was applied to keep it straight which would not only push the nose gear down but would also try to raise the left main gear due to the roll couple. Lots of the old school designs had these issues although the Kougar, Kobra and King Kobra were some of the worse. Even the Bridi Kaos and Super Kaos had these issues to a lesser degree.

kbuch

Finished rebuilding a Kadet MKII wing without ailerons. Flew the Kadet with ailerons and then changed wings, reprogrammed the channel assignment for the aileron control stick to move the rudder/nw steering and flew it as an old school three channel MKI. The aileron wing has half the diehadral and clipped wingtips. Made for a fun day. I haven't flown three channel in at least 30 years!

flyingagin

Two wings of different configuration sounds neat.

Depending on your transmitter you might be able to program two different configurations for the same plane and receiver. That would be the way to go, but like I said depends on your Tx.

Ken

do335a

About two weeks ago, got back the Kadet MKII with HP Gold Cup 40 which I sold to a club member several years back and thereipon realized my mistake. It's at post 3620.

The plane is now over 30 years old. Still never crashed, broken or rough landed.

It was returned to me, along with a replacement engine - an OS 46 Fxi which has had more than its fair share of abuse, salvaged from a Nexstar.

On rejuvenating the Kadet, since my prime requirement was to spend no money, the original cowl was used. With the engine now being upright, as opposed to side mounted, there is a great see-through view of the right side.

Other than that, I've added silhouette windows and windscreen. It still has the fluorescent wing panel on the upper wing from the encounter with the tree branch on landing many years ago. The remaining covering is the original, still taught and flexible, except on the front of the fuselage, where the upper layer has wrinkled and lifted from the color. Can't reshrink it.




Reinstallation of the radio was simple since nothing had been adjusted.

First flight is planned for the coming week.

N1EDM

My Feedback: (2)

Let us know how it goes!!!

Bob

skylark-flier

Looks really good for a 30-yr old plane.

Good luck with the re-maiden.

Battle Short

My Feedback: (5)

Hello all. Are you still accepting members to this brotherhood?

I've got a LT-40 ARF I picked up several years ago but have yet to fly. Right after I got it I stopped flying. Just now getting the itch to start flying again and think this is the best plane to use.

Glenn

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

You can't beat a LT-40!

skylark-flier

Hey Glenn!! Long time, no see. Of course we're still taking members - always will (well, as long as I'm breathing anyway). Who you got in mind?
Hey, did you move? I remember Artesia NM as being your home port. Flyer's right - the LT40, no matter what the version, is a GREAT plane to play with. I did the kit version - can't decide whether I like that or my Mk-II better, they're rather different from each other, with the LT40 being a "gentler" aircraft.
Anyway, good to see you back again.
Dave

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

I started with building the LT-40 when I got back into the hobby in 2004. Properly balanced and trim she'll just about fly herself, very forgiving too. They only thing that can really compete with it as a trainer is the old Midwest Aerostar.

mkjohnston

My Feedback: (2)

My second RC airplane was the original Kadet from 1978. I have a mark two in the box that is slated to be put together in a few years. I powered my a OS Max 25 FSR and it was a sweet airplane until the day I ran through a 25' tall ash tree trying to get away from an approaching full size aircraft. I recovered the airplane and rebuilt it and flew it for at least another two years before I destroyed it hitting a power pole next to a school yard I was flying at. I also have a LT40 that I bought at a swap meet last year for 15 bucks. Someone punched holes in the wing and the tail. I am going to repair it see I can teach my 14 year old to fly!
thanks
Michael Johnston

skylark-flier

Hey Mike!! My first RC plane was the 78 Kadet - retired it just a few years ago when my Mk-II took over. Haven't tried the LT40 yet - one day maybe. Good to see you around.

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

$15 for a LT-40?! You just about stole it! Any of you guys building anything right now?

Mike

Battle Short

My Feedback: (5)

Hello Dave! Yes I was in Artesia for several years, you have a great memory! Haven't flown at all since moving about 6 years ago, will be using the LT40 to get back into it so gentle is good. I’ve had it since living in Artesia but never flew it. Have slowly been making it flightworthy. For now I'm flying a sim, getting used to the sticks again.

Just found a LT25 kit in my stash I'd completely forgotten about. I'm going to see how things go with the LT40 before making any decisions on my next plane, I also have some BTE kits stashed. I do like building.

Glenn

Battle Short

My Feedback: (5)

I'm a dork, had forgotten about my posts from years ago....was asking for myself.

Glenn

mkjohnston

My Feedback: (2)

Hey guys. Well this is a little off the subject, last year I was giving an Old Sig Kavalier that someone had let set for quite a few years in a shed. I had to replace the canopy because it was broken in a lot of places and the fuel tank was setting on foam rubber that was just wadded up! I took that out and tore off the nose sheeting. I recently replaced the tank and wrapped it and a lot of foam rubber and secured it . This airplane wasn't built very well so it has not fun fixing rebuilding it. I am powering it with a brand new OS Max 35 AX which is freshly broke in! I should have enough ooomp to fly this baby. The original power plant was an Os FP 40 which was seized up. I gave the engine to a friend of mine who got it running really well. I still have another Kavalier that i started building at least 4 years ago. I posted some pictures of it and stopped working on it at that time. I have been looking at it lately and hopefully I will finish it by the end of the year!
Michael Johnston

skylark-flier

Hey Glenn! Y'er funny!
Truth be known, I have a database that I keep everybody straight in (actually, it's for keeping MY head straight as to all the people - both IN the b'hood and just visitors). My actual memory is such that I have no idea what I had for breakfast today (assuming that I ***DID*** have breakfast).
Anyway, it's really good to see you around again. Geez, if I wasn't so old I might actually make you an offer for that LT25. I've got an old CG Eaglet-50 (nearly a twin to the LT25) that I positively love to fly. It's would be great to see them sitting side-by-side one day.