Ailerons on both top and bottom wings gives you a better roll rate. Because I do a lot of stunt flying I like four but two work very well. Most of mine have only had the two and usually on the bottom wing. I haven't noticed any difference having them on the top or bottom wing but having four of them is a big difference. If you opt for four then you just turn down the rates or add a bunch of expo. I didn't look but I think you can see four of them on my old Krier Kraft, I built that plane for learning IMAC flying so I wanted it to respond very fast in roll.

Four is better. If you only have two (let's say on the bottom) then the bottom wing needs to drag the top wing around the roll axis. This puts a lot of stress on the cabane and end struts.

Having built and flown a few dozen different bipes (I'm a bipe lover) I rarely put ailerons on the upper wing. On all my Phaetons (4), Aeromasters (7 60 size, 1 giant), 4 Moths plus many others, the only one I ever put ailerons on the upper wing was the giant Aeromaster. Even that was not necessary but it does help improve the roll rate. On smaller bipes (.40 or less) the extra weight of the added servo and linkages may actually deteriorate the performance if you are adding ailerons. On very large planes, they are an advantage.

Gene, or anyone, have you flown a sterling Fokker DVII, if so how does it fly compared to other biplanes, or even other planes.

Thanks

Everyone needs to have a Bi-Plane. If you are a nervous wreck, can only land from one direction, cannot fly if the wind is above 5MPH, can only fly a trainer, frequently crash and blame everything other than the pilot, you may not be ready for a Bi-Plane. Repairing a crashed Bi-Plane can be more difficult. I designed and built the attached SPAD Bi-_plane 3-4 years ago and have yet to have a bad landing with it. In 30MPH gusting winds one flight gives me all of the adrenaline rush I can handle. Everyone needs to have a Bi-Plane.

That is an interesting SPAD, Villa!!

I wonder why you did not make it a canard bi-plane?

I can't recall ever flying the Sterling but I have flown the BUSA, outstanding!! I had my own scratch built D-VIIs and then there was a small ARF sold by Hobby People I think. Maybe a World Models? Mine and the ARF flew about the same, very nice planes and unlike the other WW1 Bipes that had round motors the D-VII had pretty good ground handling and doesn't flip over on landing. Of the WW1 Bipes I have flown I rate the Fokker and SE-5A the best of the bunch.

Thanks, I picked one up a while ago, I need to fix a few things on it and see what engine it came with (I think an os 40 fourstroke) It has about t 58" top wing span, nice looking plane.

Hi LNEWQBAN
That would be to complex for me. You can see a canard bi-plane in the SPAD forum below. Four engines.

Oh the first page I posted some photos of a couple of my Bipes, the fokker I'm holding was a scratch built and really heavy for it's size. I had a OS .46 SP?? Not sure any longer but it was an older OS, it flew it very well but later on I used a OS .46 LA, that wasn't bad either. The plane had a lot of lift. Ground handling was very good. The small ARF I maidened and flew for a guy was a lot lighter and had a OS SF .46, very good combo. They have a pretty long tail moment and the LG is wider then most WW1 planes so over all it was a very nice plane with a really good history behind it. If I was to build another Bipe for myself I think the Giant BUSA D-VII would be a good one. I won't but you know, IF.
Gene