What is this---name and info
01-23-2016, 06:38 PM
#4
I feel that that is a scale model of the mid thirties Fairchild 22 of which there was versions with inline Menascos as well as various Warner radials.
No clue as to whether it is just drawings or a kit but there are a number of RC Fairchild 22's of about that size in both round and inline engine versions on you tube.
John
No clue as to whether it is just drawings or a kit but there are a number of RC Fairchild 22's of about that size in both round and inline engine versions on you tube.
John
01-24-2016, 09:33 AM
#10
My Feedback: (6)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mountain Home,
AR
Posts: 2,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the advantage of being able to adjust the horizontal stabilizer incidence? Wouldn't that make the plane fly either tail high or tail low and fight the wing?
01-24-2016, 10:39 AM
#11
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Rhinelander,
WI
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-24-2016, 01:46 PM
#14
Here for what ever its worth Is a U tube link to a Menasco engine scale Fairchild 22 flying and there are several different ones on U tube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLUM26RZ57I
Lake Flyer is correct in his comments about the photos. Quarter views while yes are pretty they are the worst when you hope to identify any airplane. If tracking it down is the goal then a minimum of two views is needed and that is fuselage profile (directly from the side and planform directly from above as if looking down on the airplane.
Yes I know you want preflight info, well failing that and you get no info and its not at all uncommon if you do not. I am going to suggest the number one most important piece of info is CG. OK at risk of receiving all the hate mail of which I have received in the past for not using some computer site which is not going let you select the CG. I would use no further aft than 25% MAC for any first test flight of an airplane such as yours How to find that? Very easy just measure the distance between the leading and trailing edges then divide by four. That sum is the distance back from the leading edge for 25% MAC. That's assuming the wing is not swept or tapered (straight chord). Agine back to that planform photo.
I am basing my suggestions only on experiences with similar models including a Stinson Jr, Stinson tri motor, Fokker tri motor and the closest of all my lovely Fokker D8 (Flying razor). It is quit close in size and it flys best even slightly forward probably around 23%.
Jolly Popper Scale_for_me is pretty close and perhaps not just for a prototype, probably even drawn into plans by someone and quite usefull for times that a wide array of engines may be used such as a lite gasser or even that heavy but lovely radial, in M3220's airplane. A quick and simple trim device.
Even the Full scale Cub of which I have owned two in the distant past used virtually an identical set up with an acme screw to move the leading edge of the stab up or down. Only difference was this acme had a cable around it and was operated in the cockpit by a hand crank. Used to reduce stick pitch pressures with power and attitude changes.
In the category of just for giggles: The very first cub was in fact the Taylor Cub and nicknamed the Chummy it was also a Parasol. It was minus the turtle deck structure of all the latter Cubs and fully open cockpit.
I wish you all the joy M3220 that a lovely airplane such as yours is likely to bring.
John
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLUM26RZ57I
Lake Flyer is correct in his comments about the photos. Quarter views while yes are pretty they are the worst when you hope to identify any airplane. If tracking it down is the goal then a minimum of two views is needed and that is fuselage profile (directly from the side and planform directly from above as if looking down on the airplane.
Yes I know you want preflight info, well failing that and you get no info and its not at all uncommon if you do not. I am going to suggest the number one most important piece of info is CG. OK at risk of receiving all the hate mail of which I have received in the past for not using some computer site which is not going let you select the CG. I would use no further aft than 25% MAC for any first test flight of an airplane such as yours How to find that? Very easy just measure the distance between the leading and trailing edges then divide by four. That sum is the distance back from the leading edge for 25% MAC. That's assuming the wing is not swept or tapered (straight chord). Agine back to that planform photo.
I am basing my suggestions only on experiences with similar models including a Stinson Jr, Stinson tri motor, Fokker tri motor and the closest of all my lovely Fokker D8 (Flying razor). It is quit close in size and it flys best even slightly forward probably around 23%.
Jolly Popper Scale_for_me is pretty close and perhaps not just for a prototype, probably even drawn into plans by someone and quite usefull for times that a wide array of engines may be used such as a lite gasser or even that heavy but lovely radial, in M3220's airplane. A quick and simple trim device.
Even the Full scale Cub of which I have owned two in the distant past used virtually an identical set up with an acme screw to move the leading edge of the stab up or down. Only difference was this acme had a cable around it and was operated in the cockpit by a hand crank. Used to reduce stick pitch pressures with power and attitude changes.
In the category of just for giggles: The very first cub was in fact the Taylor Cub and nicknamed the Chummy it was also a Parasol. It was minus the turtle deck structure of all the latter Cubs and fully open cockpit.
I wish you all the joy M3220 that a lovely airplane such as yours is likely to bring.
John
Last edited by JohnBuckner; 01-24-2016 at 01:56 PM.
