Conference vmszoo::rc

         I can fly good enough to keep a plane in the air, landings
    are still a little rough.  I've never flown with ailerons before.
         The plane is an Eaglet 53 w/OS.15 w/9x4 prop.
    
         My first concern is the flushness of the ailerons vs. the wings
    trailing edge!  Mine are not flush.  They level out about 1/4" above
    the trailing edge.  Is this alright or will it cause the plane to do
    weird things!?
    
         Also, when standing behind the plane, applying left aileron
    will cause the the left alieron (as you look at it) to go down and
    the right one to go up.....am I correct?  If not, then I am in for
    a big surprise.
    
    

    
    	Well to start Ken, No matter what the application (except some
    scale set up's) The aileron hinge gap should be minimal at best.
    Ideal is to have no gap. A gap lets air flow between the trailing
    edge of the wing and the leading edge of the aileron. This is air
    that need to flow over the aileron to make the aileron work correctly.
    The more air that escapes thu the gap the less effective the control
    surface. Solution in your case is to get some packing tape, the
    plastic type and deflect the aileron so that it is pointing up.Add
    a strip of the tape to the bottom surface between the wing and control
    surface. When the aileron is deflected down make sure that the tape
    flexes into the hinge gap.
    	If the trailing edge of the wing is thinner than the leading
    edge of the aileron this isn't typically the norm.  It is however
    a method of staticly balancing a control surface. The present ideal
    is to have these two areas identical in thickness to reduce drag.
    In your case leave it alone. It's good enough. Unless of course
    you haven't perminently hinged the surfaces yet. 
    	You have the aileron reversed. Viewing the plane from the rear
    up aileron on the left wing panel/down of the right gives you left
    aileron.  Up aileron on the right wing panel/down of the left gives
    you right aileron.
    	Flying ailerons won't be that much different. You will see that
    the wing dip responce usually seen when you apply rudder to make
    a turn will be quicker when you use aileron. You will in effect
    rotate the wings along the horizontal axis with the aileron and
    still give up elevator to carve the turn.
    
    						Tom

    
    
    I guess I wasn't to clear on what I meant.  The hinge gap is alright,
    it was the trailing edge of the aileron which was higher than the
    trailing edge of the wing in the neutral position.  But last night
    I corrected it and it is in line with the rest of the wing.  In other
    words, it looks like a wing without ailerons, nothing is sticking up!
    
    How about take-offs and landings?  Ailerons aren't used for either,
    right?
    
    And when doing barrell rolls, do you need rudder input?
    
    And when doing 4 point turns, do you need rudder input?
    
    I'd rather no the answers BEFORE I try the tricks.
    
    Thanks for all the info.
    
    Ken

                              
                              
    
    
    
    
    
    

    I'll add my questions here too!  I'm just getting ready to fly an
    aileron ship for the first time (After a 2-channel sailplane).
    
    - Is the rudder used when flying with ailerons?
    
    - For what?
    
    Thanks in advance!

    
    	Sorry to say but what you have there isn't all that aerobatic.
    When a wing dips you will use aileron to level the wings. No matter
    what part of the flight your in.  A barrel role is actually a rudder
    roll. Aileron rolls are supposed to be axial in nature rather than
    barrel like.  In a four point roll the rudder is used to keep the
    nose of the plane up while the plane is flying on it's side. What
    you will probably find is that your design will roll outwith
    applicationof the rudder. To fly the plane on it's side you will
    probably have to apply rudder to keep the nase up and opposite 
    aileron to keep the plane from rolling. Have to run will continue
    this latter.......
    
    
    					Tom         to be continued...
    

    I have always set up my planes with ailerons so that when the stick
    is centred, both ailerons are slightly down, although only a little.
    
    This induces a bit of differential in the action between up and
    down. The aileron can go down more than it can go up.
    A wing can destroy lift (up aileron) more effectively than
    it can induce extra lift (down aileron), so the response from this
    set up should be better, at the expense of a little extra drag.
    
    Also this set up should reduce landing speed as the ailerons are
    also acting a little like flaps.
    
    Incedently with a lightly loaded aileron, as I guess this ship would
    have, a good hinging method is to continue the covering material over
    both the wing and control surface. This makes for an extremely flexible
    hing and is lighter to. 
    
    First lay the control surface flat on top of the wing, with about a
    1/16 piece of packing material underneath and continue the covering 
    from the bottom surface around and over the aileron.
    
    Then bend the control surface all the way down and cover the top
    surface in a similar manner. Result is a free moving hinge which
    is strong, light and quick to make. And no air gaps!
    
 
    Does anyone have any views about using ailerons as flaps during
    final approach, and perhaps stearing with the rudder.
    
	John.
    
    

    John,
    
    	I hate to break your bubble but if all you have done is lower
    both ailerons to act a little like a flap then you don't have 
    differencial.  Differencial is measured from the neutral point.
    I sure if you measure the up and down throw of your set up it
    will be equal. What in effect you have done is changed your airfoil.
    Hanging the aileron is a good idea for someone that is new to a
    sholder or low winged airframe. It will slow things down a bit.
    	Differencial is a set up where by you get either more up than
    down of vise versa. It done by connecting the pushrods either forward
    of center on the servo arm or rearward of center. Both rods must
    be either forward or rearward. One of those star or round servo
    arms in employed.
    
    						Tom

    
    
    That is exactly how mine are set up.  The monocote goes right over
    the ailerons.
    
    I finally got my bird in the air last night after the engine settled
    in and gave me enough power to get off the ground.  I took the .15
    out last night and put in a .25, hopefully this will help my flight
    capabilities---you know, SPEED!
    
    From what I discovered, being my first time up with ailerons, is
    that the rudder isn't needed for a normal up/down, left/right flight.
    The only time I used it was on take-off.  I'm sure you use them for
    trick flying, but I don't have the slightest idea how.  I'd like to
    hear instructions for doing barrel rolls and four point turns.....
    
    As far as your theory of ailerons acting as flaps, it sounds good
    to me, but again, I am only a beginner.  I really don't know how
    much drag will be caused by the lower hanging ailerons.  But I did
    notice that on landing, they work a whole lot better than the rudder!
    I actually was able to do a couple of touch-and-goes last night
    before I brought it in for a beautiful 3 point landing.  No, you are
    right, I am bragging!  It feels good when you do something right after
    so long.
    
    Lets get some suggestions in this note on the COMPLETE USE of ailerons
    so we beginners can learn before hand.
    
    Ken

    re .8
    Drooping the ailerons does change the lift characteristics. But
    when kit manufacturers advertise "differential" aileron control,
    what that usually means is that they twist the control horns
    somewhat, so the arc for one direction is less than the arc for 
    the other direction, giving differential action.

    RE: a few
    
    I haven't seen the explanation of the purpose of aileron differential
    in this note so ... here it is.
    
    The main purpose of ailerons is to create a difference in lift between
    the wing halves. This difference in lift causes the aircraft to
    roll (OK, pretty standard stuff). It makes no difference whether
    the ailerons dropped down, centered, or up in the neutral position.
    
    Now, the tricky part. When the ailerons are centered the two wing
    halves are producing equal amounts of drag. When the ailerons are
    off center (i.e. a roll maneuver is being performed) the difference
    in the position of the ailerons causes the wing halves to produce
    DIFFERENT amounts of drag. The drag difference causes the airplane
    to yaw in the direction of the wing producing the most drag. As
    it turns out the DOWNGOING aileron causes more drag than the upgoing
    aileron so... if you are doing a left roll then the airplane will
    yaw (i.e. sideslip) to the right. In technical terms this is known as
    "adverse yaw". The sole purpose of the rudder control (in normal
    flight) is to correct for adverse yaw, so if you roll to the right
    then you should feed in right rudder to counteract the left yaw
    caused by the downgoing left aileron. This is precisely what is
    ment by doing a "coordinated turn".
    
    At this point the reason for differential aileron movement should
    be pretty clear. i.e. if you make the upgoing aileron move more
    than the downgoing aileron, then the drag will be symmetrical and
    you don't have to worry about the rudder at all!  Note that
    differential should NOT be used for flying upside down since in
    that case the downgoing aileron is moving MORE than the upgoing
    aileron, so the adverse yaw will get TERRIBLE.
    
    I'm not totally sure what the implications are of raising or lowering
    both ailerons but dropping the ailerons will at a minimum cause
    some drag and drop your max. speed.  On the other hand the additional
    drag steepens the glide which should make landings easier.
    
    Enough babbleing for now.
    
    					Hope this is useful,
                                          GES

    
    
    
                                  | |
                                  | |
                                  | |
                                  | |
         .=========================
        \  \
         \  \
          \  \
          | o |
          /  /
         /  /
        /  /
         .=========================
                                  | |
    
    
    	This set up installed on the bottom of a wing will give you
    more up aileron than down.\
    
    

	I see the action of ailerons slightly differently
    I agree that drag will be an effect of aileron movement but
    the rolling effect comes from increased (and conversely) decreased
    lift between the wings.
    
    When the aileron is down the distance over the wing (chord) is
    effectively increased. The air over the upper surface therefore
    has further to travel so must travel faster, causing a greated pressure
    drop with respect to the lower surface. The result is increased
    lift. This causes that wing to rise and conversely the oposite wing
    to drop.
    
    Once the ailerons are centred the rotation stops and the turning
    action results because the component lift is not now verticle, but
    pointing to the centre of an immaginary circle in the sky. The radius
    of this circle is determined by the angle of attack set by the
    elevator. In this attitude up elevator shortens the radius and tightens
    the turn.
    
    In full size craft the tail would tend to drop under the effect
    of gravity, as it loses a component of lift from the tailplane.
    The rudder is used to offset this. Models need less rudder correction
    as they are scaled down in size, BIG'ens need a little bit, LITTLE'ens
    usually none.
                  *****************************************

	Tom
    
     > differencial.  Differencial is measured from the neutral point.      <
     > I sure if you measure the up and down throw of your set up it        <
     > will be equal. What in effect you have done is changed your airfoil. <

    I agree the throw is equal, but consider:
    
    If the throw is say 2 inches thats 1" up and 1" down,
    The offset is say 1/8th down,
    If you measure from the wing tip where the effect starts then the
    resultant throw is    1 + 1/8 = 9/8" down
                          1 - 1/8 = 7/8" up
    
    That looks like differential to me.
    
    John

    

			The set up as described will not give
	differential aileron movement,sure it have a greater throw
	below the wing TE than above it,but the movement will be
	symmetrical about the neutral (centre stick) position.
	Differential is by definition more up than down,or
	vice-versa.In our case we need more up than down,cos the
	down going aileron causes lift AND drag,in the worse case
	it may produce more drag than lift and the plane won't roll.
	By the way symmetrical wing sections need no differential
	aileron movement...


			Ignoring mega-buck radio sets there are two
	ways to get differential movement.

	1. As described by Tom a reply or two back

	2. Connect the pushrod at the servo neutral position
	   and 'rake' the horn on the control surface (wish I could
	   draw pretty pictures,maybe Tom will oblige).

	bob 

    I have a question regarding lowering both ailerons. Are
    you talking about strip ailerons? If so it would seem that you
    have modified you airfoil, which may lower landing speed.
    I would not do this with the old barn door type ailerons.
    Lowering the ailerons in this case would be like building
    wash-in. This would cause the wing tips to stall before
    the rest of the wing, and instead of slowing you down, would
    cause a tendency to snap roll at low speeds.

    A popular use of the 4th chanel on slope aerobatic machines is to
    mechanically mix flaps and ailerons ... flaperons... I've used this
    method sucessfully on a 100" machine with 2",full length, strip
    ailerons (very aerobatic). The section was not quite fully semetrical
    and I did have problems with adverse yaw, this was particularly
    evident on final approach with the flaps lowered. I overcame the
    problems by use of ... increased differential on the upward going
    aileron, less excessive use of the flaps and better use of the rudder
    (a lot to think about in the early days)
    	The flaperons are also usefull for modifying the lift and speed
    characteristics e.g. improving inverted flight by negative use of
    flaps, or tightening a loop by use of positive flaps along with
    the elevator.... there are lots of combinations..
    
    	Again on the subject of differential... I have used more upward
    going aileron on my Spitfire to improve both its general flying
    handling and to make it more scalelike in the turns but this has
    been at the expence of its slow speed handling .. its a bit prone
    to tip stall. (better to build in a little washout next time)
    
    
    		End of ramblings.......
    					Trev
    

> Note 239.496 by TALLIS::LADD >
...
>    earlier this year i had the displeasure of watching kay's
>    gorgeous jeep fold its wing in midair and splash into the tar
...
He called it gorgeous.
Now I want to go in the workshop and sand some more...

In an effort to get you guys off the subject of weather and cheap shots
I have a question that came about while reading the Feb issue
of scale R/C Modeler.  That's the one with the Black Phantom on the
front and the letter from Hazel Sig.

On page 38 starts an article about the Behrens' Travel Air 2000 Biplane.
The article bounces around till on page 69 there is a picture of the
wing plans.  Now on the top wing there is what they called Elephant
Ear Ailerons - neat - it looks like the force on the section of the
aileron forward of the hinge will do part of the work of the servo.
Any general opinions about Elephant Ear Ailerons in general?

Now to the real question.
On the bottom wing there is a servo in the middle of the wing and rod
going out to the 2nd to last rib - near the tip.
Then it has something funny on the end that I can't make out but it's
labeled Steering Arm.  Am I to believe that this is for "Wing Warping"?
Why would they do this in addition to Ailerons?

              _!_      
Bye        ----O----   
Kay R. Fisher / \     

================================================================================

Re: .-2..., Kay,

>       .......Now on the top wing there is what they called Elephant
> Ear Ailerons - neat - it looks like the force on the section of the
> aileron forward of the hinge will do part of the work of the servo.
> Any general opinions about Elephant Ear Ailerons in general?

*  "Elephant Ear" ailerons were an early [and simple] method of creating aero-
dynamic balance of the control surface.  As you correctly surmise, the result
is that the surface tends to be in "balance" at neutral and, when deflected, 
the slipstream indeed aids/augments movement, lightening stick pressures and 
easing control system [servo] loads.  The "Elephant Eared" balances were first 
applied by Tony Fokker to the rudder of the E-1 Eindecker with great success
and subsequently used on many Fokker designs like the DR-1 Triplane, the D-VII,
D-VIII and the later Fokker Trimotor.

The use [copying] of the elephant-ear ailerons and rudder on the Travelaire, 
incidentally, gave rise to the widely used knickname of "Witchita Fokker" and 
the Travelaire was frequently used by Hollywood as a Fokker D-VII because of
the resemblance created by these "ears."  Catch the old movies "Wings" and "Dawn
Patrol" next time they're shown on late-nite TV and you'll see lotsa' "Witchita
Fokkers" masquerading as D-VII's.

> Now to the real question.
> On the bottom wing there is a servo in the middle of the wing and rod
> going out to the 2nd to last rib - near the tip.
> Then it has something funny on the end that I can't make out but it's
> labeled Steering Arm.  Am I to believe that this is for "Wing Warping"?
> Why would they do this in addition to Ailerons?

* I'll have to look at the plans to be sure what yer' seeing but I can assure 
you that wing-warping was "not" used on the Travelaire.  Without checking, I 
can't be sure, but I thought the -2000 had 4-ailerons, the lowers driving the
uppers via an external linkage between the ailerons.  Another possibility is 
that the -2000 had upper ailerons only, these being driven by a linkage from 
the lower wing.  You've got me curious so I'll definitely check it out and let
ya' know what it looks like to me.

Adios amigo,	Al

> Now to the real question.
> On the bottom wing there is a servo in the middle of the wing and rod
> going out to the 2nd to last rib - near the tip.
> Then it has something funny on the end that I can't make out but it's
> labeled Steering Arm.  Am I to believe that this is for "Wing Warping"?
> Why would they do this in addition to Ailerons?

>> 						......Another possibility is 
>> that the -2000 had upper ailerons only, these being driven by a linkage from 
>> the lower wing.  You've got me curious so I'll definitely check it out and 
>> let ya' know what it looks like to me.

* Kay..., I checked the Travel Air 2000 plans and the above is indeed the case.
the plans show a center-section mounted aileron servo in the bottom wing driving
a torque-tube, the rotation of which is converted to vertical linear motion by 
the steering arm mounted to the end of the tube.  A drive-link is then attached
between the steering arm and a horn mounted to the aileron on the upper wing. 
If you'll look at the two pix, you can see this linkage coming out of the lower
wing just behind and slightly outboard of the N-strut forward attach point and 
running up to the aileron.  This was [apparently] the prototypical method for 
driving the ailerons and was used extensively on bipes with upper ailerons only.

You'll also note that an alternate method is shown in phantom [dotted lines] 
which provides for mounting a servo for each aileron in the top wing. This might
be easier to implement [and might be stronger as well for a larger bird] but, in
the interest of authenticity, you'd still want to install a "dummy" aileron link
from the aileron to the lower wing

Adios amigo,	Al

    
                       Bellcranks vs Torque rods
    
      I am in the process of finishing up an ACE 4-40 that was started by
    another builder. I am getting to the point of setting up the Ailerons.
    The person who started the plane chose to drill the ribs, and set up 
    internal platforms for a bellcrank type aileron installation. The plane
    is originally designed as a torque rod application.
    
    My questions are:
    
    1. What are some of the advantages vs disadvantages of the two types?
       Any personnel preferences? (What, in this hobby)
    
    2. It seems to me that the bellcrank offers an advantage as to where
       the force is applied to the aileron, but does the overall linkage
       have more flex to it?
      
    3. What are the normal ways to connect the servo to the bellcrank, and
       the bellcrank to the aileron?
    
    4. Are the bellcranks worth the added work and expense (nyrods, etc)?
    The only plane I have flown with ailerons is my Electrostreak, which is
    kind of a hybrid between the two, and it seems to work fine. I would
    appreciate any input I can get on the subject.
    
    
                                               Thanks,
    
                                                 Dan 
    

        Re:                     <<< Note 104.22 by WMOIS::DA_WEIER >>>

        Dan,
        
                I am  always ready to give a highly opinionated, strongly
        put set of recommendations.
        
                Only use bellcranks  when  you  have no other choice.  (I
        can hear Charlie Watt  cheering 1/2 a mile away).  The problem is
        that as they wear you get a lot of slop in the linkages.  Slop is
        horrible.  Every pivot point and  every  connection  will  as  it
        wears give a bit of slop.   Counting  a typical bellcrank aileron
        linkage I get 5.
        
                With a torque rod you only have 1!
        
                With  the  servo in the wing, directly connected  to  the
        aileron you get 2!
        
                If you absolutely insist on the sloppy solution make sure
        the  bellcrank  has  a  proper bearing, not just a screw  in  the
        middle.  That eliminates one of the big sloppers.  The others you
        cant do a lot about.
        
                      _ 
                     / |
           _----____/==|
         /__====------- 
             |-          
            /              
           /               
         Hang in there!      
                           
             Anker           

RE: Note 104.23 by HOLL22::ANKER "Anker Berg-Sonne"

>        With a torque rod you only have 1!
>        With  the  servo in the wing, directly connected  to  the
>        aileron you get 2!

    I don't see this.  Either both of them are 1 or both of them are 2.

    As I see it, both are 2: one pivot point at the servo wheel and one
    point where the pushrod connects to the torque rod or aileron
    control horn.  (Just think of the torque rod as a type of control
    horn...)
        
                       _____
                      |     \
                      |      \                          Silent POWER!
      _        ___________    _________   |            Happy Landings!
     | \      |           |  |         |  |
     |--------|-  SANYO  + ]-|  ASTRO  |--|              - Dan Miner
     |_/      |___________|  |_________|  |
                      |       /           |     " The Earth needs more OZONE,
                      |      /                       not Caster Oil!! "    
                      |_____/

    
    If the design calls for torque rods and there are no known aileron
    flutter problems with that plane, it would be crazy to use bellcranks.
    I have them in my Citabria and they work ok but were hard to install,
    they add slop to the linkage, and they are just another thing that can
    fail or require maintenance.
    
    Bill

    
                            Thanks
    
      Thanks for all the quick input. I was kind of hoping that torque rods
    would be the right answer. They seemed to me to be the preference, it
    just confused me when a person went through the trouble of
    installing special pieces just to have bellcranks.
      Thanks to the quickness of the responses, I can now go home this
    weekend and do the installation without wondering if I was doing the
    right thing.
    
                                               Dan

Whew!  The Injun strikes again...how do you follow an act like
that?

Got a good lesson in adverse yaw yesterday.  I've been flying
the PT40 for a couple of sessions now; unfortunately, the weather
and tight schedule have kept me from having more than about 15
minutes total stick time.  For this reason I have not entered a
review of the kit, but based on things so far I can say it'll be
a rave.  The plane is really nice, far better than anything I've
flown before -- and of course, I've been ribbed a good deal on my
finally flying a big airplane.  Little do they know there's a
couple of small ones coming down the road!

Oh yeah, the lesson in adverse yaw.  I've been having an
instructor fly with me so far, mostly because its been windy and
I have not been impressed with the plane's climb-out and didn't
want to risk a crash (been running the engine rich for break-in). 
Good judgement as we shall see.

Ivan Munninghoff flew the plane on the first flight yesterday. 
He took it up and rung it out with rolls, spins, etc.  Then he
handed me the box and I flew for a while and landed... well, I
got it on the deck in one piece.  While flying it he remarked
that I was having some adverse yaw problems. I had set up the
ailerons with equal deflection for the following reasons:

1.  Having read the previous discussion on adverse yaw, I figured
that it was academic, since no matter what you do you should
still coordinate turns with rudder, and setting up the ailerons
with higher up deflection is just a crutch.  Real flyers
coordinate turns.

2.  I was very proud of myself that the ailerons deflected
evenly; this goes along with my penchant for pretty directories
on the computer.

3.  I didn't know how to properly set up the ailerons.

Anyway, Ivan explained that all I needed to do was to angle the
rods on the strip ailerons about 15 degrees and that would get
it.  But I said yeah, sure, I'll think about it some time, and
let it go at that.

So, fresh from my landing on the first flight, I decided that
this was as good a time as any to fly it myself.  The wind was
piping about 12-15 knots at a slight angle to the runway, but I
felt I could handle it anyway.  I should also mention that after
3 years of flying with the rudder/wheels on the right stick, I
still haven't learned where the steering is on the PT.  The winds
have been too strong up here lately for me to get some practice
steering it, so this was the first time I had a chance to use the
left stick.

Anyway, I lined her up and put on the coal.  She tracked straight
and I thought I saw the tail lift slightly, which has been what I
look for before I lift off.  I pulled back the stick and she
broke ground, then veered sharply left.  I gave right stick and
she only went left faster.  At about 50 feet and headed straight
for the pits, I cut the power and called "heads up".  Lucky my
depth perception is so lousy, it was actually past the pits and
she went into the dirt.  Nothing broke, amazing since this
landing would have broken something on the Eaglet for sure.

So for the post-mortem.  I lifted her off too soon and too slow.
This cut the effectiveness of the ailerons and just giving it
more stick caused adverse yaw to kick in.  Dumb thumbing the
right stick aileron harder, and not applying the left stick
rudder (I didn't think of using it), of course, only made it
worse.

Guess what? I dusted it off and had Ivan stand by while I put
in the proper deflection -- about 3/8 up and 1/4 down.  The wind
was cranking above 15 by then and I bagged it until next week.

Did I learn about adverse yaw?  You betcha!

Al: Ivan and a couple of others are flying down for Top Gun (not
competing) next week -- hope you get a chance to meet them, along
with Randy Oswald of course.  

    Hi there,
    I have a plan for an upper wing R/C airplane with rudder only as
    control. The plan are from the 1960 or older. My question is: what size
    of ailerons should I put in the design. If there to small they will not
    be effective, and if there to big my plane will be to sensitive. Is
    there a formula that can be used to determine the size of the ailerons.
    
    
        Jacques
    

    Size is not the only factor that affects the sensitivity of the
    control.  The throw of the control surface is just as important.
    
    Have you built/flown models before??  What are the reasons for
    building this particular ship??  From what I have seen from older
    plans, the construction is a bit different from today too.  (I don't
    remember back to the days of escapement, maybe someone as old as 
    the desert rat can fill us in on the differences! :-)
    
    Adding ailerons and elevator to a model is as easy as sanding and 
    attaching the surface....  The key is to give the surface enough
    throw without making it over-sensitive; based on the size of surface.
    
    Hope this helps some...
    
    jeff
    

The normal rule of thumb is aileron area equals about 20% of wing
area.

    
    I received a SIG KLIPPER, which is a upper wing foam core plane with
    .15 engine and 3 channnels. Should I add ailerons or leave it as is.
    I am still a novice at flying and my next plane after that will be a
    TELEMASTER 40.
    
    Thanks
    
    Jacques
    

    Re: .-1, Jacques,
    
    As has been discussed in the past, most 3-channel trainers, i.e.
    throttle/rudder/elevator, are designed with considerable dihedral in
    the wing for stability in the roll axis.  Rudder is effective for
    turning in this arrangement as it deals with the yaw axis and forces
    the plane into a bank despite the fact that the dihedral in the wing is
    struggling to keep the roll axis stable.
    
    Adding ailerons to a plane designed for rudder only is usually not
    effective.  The inherent stability produced by the dihedral fights any
    change in the roll axis and the result is usually adverse yaw meaning
    that the drag of the down aileron tends to yaw the plane in a direction
    opposite the desired turn.  That's right, you can give the plane left
    aileronon and the plane will try to turn right.  Coordinated left
    rudder can compensate for this but this is more than the average
    newcomer needs to have to contend with.
    
    My advice is to forget the ailerons...save 'em for yer' next
    (intermediate) trainer.  If you _insist_ upon installing ailerons, I
    recommend you reduce the wing's dihedral to about 1/3 of the dimension
    shown for the rudder only plane.  By and large, even after doing this,
    ailerons are usually rather ineffective when added to a rudder only
    design...yer' best bet is to save 'em for the Telemaster-40.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    An alternative to ailerons is spoilers.  I put them on a quarter scale
    Citabria and significantly eliminated adverse yaw.  Since spoilers are
    on top of the wing and only go up there is no drag added to the outside
    wing.
    
    Regarding the adverse yaw lesson.  If I understand what you said I
    think you might be looking at another problem.  On take off, at slow speed,
    you would probably see more affect from "P" factor than adverse yaw.
    A simple explanation of "P" factor is ("P" stands for Power) the down going
    blade on your prop is at a higher angle of attack than the up going blade. 
    Therefore it produces more lift (Power) and yaws the plane to the left.  
    Right rudder is always needed on full size planes during takoff for this
    reason.  If you let your plane reach a higher speed before take off or
    during climb out you will have less trouble with it.  However, on small
    planes (up through 60 size) this is not usually so noticeable as to be a
    problem.  There might be another cause we haven't identified.

    I need some help on ailron linkages.
    
    I am currently building a Ford Tri-Motor from RCM plans which do not
    have any construction directions.  I have connected the ailron linkages
    from the servo (in the center of the wing) to the bell crank (which
    runs some 27 inches out toward the wing tips).
    
    My problem is hooking up the push rod from the bell crank to the ailron
    control horn because I do not know if the control rod should run
    through the center spar of just "hang out" through the bottom covering. 
    It seems that if the control rod does not go through the center spar,
    there will be too much slop (it's about 7 inches from the bell crank to
    the control horn).
    
    Any suggestions will be most helpful.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Ollie 
                                                                        

    I would not run a control rod through the spar as this will seriously
    weaken the spar.  I have used the bell crank style of connecting
    ailerons and its ok to bend the control rods so that they exit out the
    bottom or top of the wing.  Put a balsa plate in between the ribs where
    the control rod will exit.  If you want to get real neat put a control
    rod exit cover in the balsa plate.
    
    Will
     

    For slow flying planes this may be ok.  Be sure that you have a nice
    slop free control system or flutter could get you.  For anything fast I
    would avoid belcranks if at all possible and go with separate aileron
    servos.
    
    Charlie
    

I agree with Charlie. Every bellcrank/rod connection adds the slop of the 
hole/rod difference in size so make sure your rods are a good fit. This is 
only going to get worse with time and you'll have to go into the wing to 
fix it 8^(

    I was speaking from experience.  I had to pull out the belcranks and go
    with two servos on my first bipe.  I got 10 flights on it before the
    belcranks wore to the point where they were unusable.  Then it was wing
    cutting time.  I cut out the ply plates and belcranks and installed two
    servos.  This job would have been easier before covering. :-(
    
    Charlie
    

    Ollie,
    if its any help I have the May 1987 issue with the Tri-motor
    construction article in it. Looking at the photes, he has the pushrod
    exiting the bottom of the wing just in front of the spar. The plans
    aren't very helpful about it but judging from the angles in the photes
    he must have the bellcrank mounting brackets mounted angling down
    slightly.
    
    If you need a copy of the article, send me mail.

    Thanks much for the replys to my inquiry on the Ford Tri-Motor.  I
    think I will use the two servos (one in each wing) driving the aileron
    and not have to worry about the slop developing over a short period of
    time.  
    
    I will first check with my local club experts to figure out how to add
    the "extension cord" from each servo to the receiver since each servo
    will be out some 27 inches from the fuse.
    
    It's really great to have you folks to help a glider gider convert to
    building power planes (I have two trainers for learning to fly power),
    and by the time I get this under my belt, I'll have finished the
    tri-motor.
    
    Thanks much,
    
    Ollie
         

    Ollie,
    	You can get extension leads for your servos.  I make my own but I
    would only recommend that if you are VERY good with a soldering iron. 
    I cut the servo lead and splice in the necessary wire.  I use heat
    shrink over the joints to protect them from vibration.  Stranded wire
    gets brittle when you solder it so you have to be careful.  Again,
    spend the $$ and buy the extension leads ($5 each from Cermark) if you
    are not a soldering wiz!
    
    Charlie
    

1 meter Futaba leads are only $8 at Tom's so they are available for walk 
in purchase. I tape the conenctors together before pulling them into the 
wing so I know the state.

    You can get different lengths from Cermark.  I think they have 12 and
    24 inch.  You don't want to get them way too long as the length is a
    source of noise pickup.  If 12 inches is enough, get that.
    
    Charlie
    

Right. Futaba makes 6", 12", and 24" as well but I thought 27" distance 
was mentioned.

    On the topic of extensions for servos, do any of you have a length
    limit at which you install a choke??
    
    Why do you feel it is so critical to be very good with a soldering iron
    in order to add in extensions??  I'm asking because I soldered four of
    them into my quarter scale plane.  They seem to work fine but you may
    know somthing I've overlooked.  I basically tinned the wires and then
    fused them and shrink wrapped them.  
    
    I used Cermark chokes because the lengths total went up to three feet 
    and I was using 6.0V batterys.
    
    Regards,
    
    Will

    Will,
    	I would add chokes if possible if you add any extensions.  I didn't
    do that in my pattern ship and the ailerons go nuts if you get your
    antenna near the wing.  My warning on soldering was aimed at those who
    have not done electrical soldering.  Good joints are essential for
    reliable operation.  Too cold and you get a weak joint that will fail
    and if you add too much solder, it wicks up the wire and makes it
    brittle.  You want a hot iron and just enough solder to get a good
    joint.  I twist the bare wires together first, then solder them.  NEVER
    use ACID flux or the joint will corrode and fail!  Heat shrink is a
    great strain relief for the joint.  Use a long enough piece to straddle
    the brittle part.  Anyone who has done plenty of soldering can do it
    but I would again not recommend that this be your first electrical
    soldering job.  Get help if you need it.
    
    Charlie
    

    I thought I had this issue straightened out until the last few notes
    mentioned "chokes".  What are chokes, where and how does one use them?
    
    Ollie

    This reply may not be totally accurate, it is only my admitedly amature
    understanding of the issue with long leads.
    
    I believe that the problem is that any wire is essentially an antenna. 
    With a long wire more "spurious" signals become present.  
    
    In order to keep your signal the predominant one a choke basically lets
    yours pass and blocks or reduces the rest.  
    
    The Cermark chokes I bought were a small chip that you soldered the
    servo wires to.
    
    I would welcome any other more knowledgable comments from our EE
    (electrically experienced) community.
    
    Will 

    Basically, a choke, or coil, is used to attenuate/reduce any high frequency
    signals that may be picked up by a long wire.  When high frequency
    noise gets picked up like this, it can interfere with the normal
    functioning of servos, and cause them to jitter.
    
    There is also a more expensive, but very reliable way to solve this
    problem, and that's to put amplifiers in each servo extension lead,
    with the amplifier being as close to the Rx socket as possible.  I know
    that JR makes up such a thing, because I bought two for my Extra 300
    which has a servo per aileron.  Never had any interference with this
    setup.  What you buy is basically 36 inches of servo wire with a small
    integrated circuit amplifier attached in-line, and close to one end. 
    That's the end you splice into the servo connector that goes to the Tx
    socket.  Then the long wire goes out to the servo where again, it is
    spliced to the existing line. 
    
    Whichever way you go, one thing seems for sure.  Leaving a long
    servo wire hanging out in the wing without any form of noise supression
    is an accident waiting to happen.  It might be fine for a long time,
    but that wire is an antenna, and could pick up interference at any
    time, should it be present in sufficient strength.
    
    Regards,                                          
    Joe

    Thanks, to you guys, I continue to learn a lot about this model
    building hobby.  However, the more I learn, I find out the less I know.  
    
    Charlie sent me the constructon article on the Ford Tri-motor which is
    a great help in building this model.  However, again there is a
    question on ailerons as stated in the article:
    
    "Due to the extreme triple taper on the wing, it tends to come out with
    aerodynamic washout already built into the top surfaces --- good.  Be
    prepared to carve the trailing edge of the airerons to add about 1/8"
    more washout--it won't hurt."
    
    How does one carve washout into the ailerons, and is it carved out on
    the top or bottom of the ailerons.  (I think that washout on the wing
    tip is accomlished by twisting the leading edge down and the trailing
    edge up, but the aileron is a different story??).
    
    Once again, your expert "how to" will be greately appreciated.
    
    
    Ollie