<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2737.800" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>This past year I put about 500 flights on a pair of
Vivats which have fixed tips. The 3 years prior, I put about 1600 flights
on a pair of EMCs which had the control surfaces go all the way to the
tips. Same servos, same linkages, very similar surface areas and control
throws. Both used 2C engines and similar softmounts. I found the
average aileron servo needed to be replaced (pots and gears) after about 250
flights on both planes. I suspect the biggest difference between the servo
life I see and Troy sees is attributable to 2C vs 4C. FWIW - we are both
using the same aileron servos and laser throw meters.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The theory about tip vortices putting extra wear on
an aileron servo makes sense - but I tend to think it may be more/less of a
problem on different designs. I tend to think other factors may contribute
less, equally, or more depending on the particular plane - softmount used,
engine used, weight of control surface, control throw geometry, orientation of
the servo pot, etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dave Lockhart</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>DaveL322@comcast.net</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=vicenterc@comcast.net
href="mailto:vicenterc@comcast.net">vicenterc@comcast.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> ; <A
title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=Rcmaster199@aol.com
href="mailto:Rcmaster199@aol.com">Rcmaster199@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, January 30, 2005 3:58
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: No fixed
tips?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I agree with Matt. I have done it in both ways and never had
problems.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Vince Bortone</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">--------------
Original message -------------- <BR>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV>I have done it both ways and notice virtually identical performance as
long as the aileron areas (as a percentage and planform) are unchanged. What
I have found stops the snap accurately and repeatably is a light wing. Have
not required servo pots in either type after 100's of flights. Don't know
why some are losing servos after a few flights, but do know what works for
me.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Commercial jets flying at 600 mph and models flying at 100mph, don't
have much in common.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>MattK</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 1/30/2005 12:30:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,
pattern4u@comcast.net writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The current theory is that the ailerons all
the way out to the tips, stop the snap more accurately.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Eric.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=mailto:billglaze@triad.rr.com
href="mailto:billglaze@triad.rr.com">Bill Glaze</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=mailto:discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, January 30, 2005
11:33 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: No fixed tips?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Again, with the full-size: Notice that such
luminaries as Boeing, Douglas, et.al don't run their ailerons to the
tips, but instead stop short? As Troy and Doug have
stated, the wingtip vortices generated are the reason. I had a
long discussion with Dick Hanson about this, and he stated that "it
didn't make any difference on our models." Well, from what Troy
has discovered about aileron pots, it seems it DOES make a
difference.<BR>Bill Glaze<BR><BR>Troy A. Newman wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=midBAY4-DAV2691B975E8C26623854E33947B0@phx.gbl
type="cite">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1479" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>They don't fly the same....and the
aileron thru the tip thing wears out servo pots faster. I flew a model
this past summer and it went thru aileron servo pots in 50 flights. I
normally get well over 100-125 flights. And this was a wood model so
the vibration was better damped than a composite fuse.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Wing tips have lots of turbulence coming
off of them...then stick a aileron in this turbulence. NOPE not the
best from an engineering standpoint. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The answer guys and manufacturers give is
it snaps better. My answer is design a good wing and it will snap
better. Copy a good wing and it will snap better. The ailerons
become more effective with the area at the tip....but I don't feel it
helps flight performance. Aileron thru the tip is much easier and
faster to build than a boxed in version. on the ARFy stuff its
cheaper...this is the biggest reason I think its done.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>As for elevators without tips there are
no references. And the same things apply</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>All my models have them boxed and will
have them boxed in.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Troy</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,0) 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal">-----
Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: rgb(228,228,228) 0% 50%; FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; moz-background-clip: initial; moz-background-origin: initial; moz-background-inline-policy: initial"><B>From:</B>
<A title=mailto:twtaylor@ftc-i.net
href="mailto:twtaylor@ftc-i.net">Tim Taylor</A> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal"><B>To:</B>
<A title=mailto:discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal"><B>Sent:</B>
Saturday, January 29, 2005 7:46 AM</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal"><B>Subject:</B>
No fixed tips?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>No fixed tips at the end of the
wing/stab seems to be the rage. Any real reason for this? I really
don't care for this very much as it makes it harder to make sure
your trim is right and the elev half's
meet.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>