Gray Beard

My Feedback: (-1)

I haven't gotten to use the digitals of any brand so can't say either is any better. I did have the GP meter for a number of years and it too worked just fine but I had to take it to a flat and level spot in my shop to zero it every time I changed something. Still, for the price it worked well. I got my Robart in a big box of junk at an auction for almost nothing. I had been using the meters my advanced instructor owned so when I spotted that Robart in the box of junk I never said a word to anyone and bid on it. The meter was brand new. The instructions that come with the meter show a number of things you can do with them besides setting up wings and stabs. I don't think there is a lot of difference from one to the other as long as they do what you need. I gave a student my old GP meter and it's still being used so it was 20 bucks well spent. Make and model is just a choice thing and two are much better then just one if your able to afford it. I even use mine when I'm setting up ARFs for people. I was surprised at how well the incidence of most ARFs is already set.

Minnreefer

Thanks, I like the feature on the Robart for the thrust, I could see using that often.

Thanks

Jon

bjbellino

My Feedback: (176)

Flyboy, I have two robarts, and I guess they are not state of the art, but I usually put one on each wing half when joining wing halves, or put one on the mounted engine crankshaft to check incident on the horizontal stab or check the incidence on the wing compared to the engine or the horizontal stab, anyway the point here is to USE a meter and not THINK it looks OK. Same way with a tach, USE it, don't say, oh it sounds pretty good or "man", it really pulls. Thirty-thirty five years ago these were hi- tech tools and now they are just what they are, essential tools to help get your plane dialed in, so that you can be a better pilot and have fun, Bob.

drac1

My Feedback: (4)

When i first started building models i used a level and ruler to set up my models. You do need to know how to calculate using trigonometry though.
This worked excellent, but the Robart meters made it alot easier. I have been using the Robart meters for years now and find they are very good. I have 5 of them.
You do not need a flat and level work bench. You don't even need to level the model, but it is easier if you do.
Most models use the canopy base for reference, so set the canopy base level then set the stab, wing and down thrust from this 0 point. If the model is not level then you need to do some basic maths to get the required settings.
For years i also used the Robart meters and rulers to set control surface throws, but now i use the CRC throw meters which work very well.
Another post said he can read his meters from 10 feet away. Can't see that is a benefit as i have never had to be that far away from models when setting up.

sensei

The very best is the one you become the most proficient with using in a well defined systematic order of aircraft setup prior and during use...

Bob

ARUP

That's a great answer, Bob! I use a plain ol' bubble level in conjunction with the Robart tool for some set ups. Here is a 1/4 DH-5 being set up. You can see the bubble level under arm of Robart tool. Non- elastic cord and rulers come in handy for this stuff, too!

MTK

I prefer the AeroPerfect also for all the reasons John W mentions. I definitely don't have to use a level table eventhough I have one. I have it set-up on my laptop so it's very portable

For me, the simplest way to set-up a plane if you have a flat table is using a height gauge. The simplest way to determine control surface deflection is with the aeroperfect

I also have other reasons for the aeroperfect such as precisely measuring propeller blade angles at specific stations. I make my own props so that's important to me...YMMV