<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV>I abhor using electronics to "FIX" a poor mechanical or aerodynamic
set-up. These lessons were learned early before there were dual rates or even
reversing switches, let alone all the other shtuff that come standard in mid to
hi end radios.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Suggestion for newbies working on new planes: turn all your expo, rate
switch, program, etc., off, high off, respectively, and center all your
servos without program assist. Zero everything but reverse as necessary.
Adjust all of your linkages accordingly to center the surfaces. Then adjust to
preference as Dave suggests. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Mark is particularly on the mark (pardon the pun) with his "retentive"
analysis. Two monokote layers forming an overlap seam = .005". In my view
measuring beyond about .015" (1/64") is counterproductive on anything we do
(except engine parts and wing or stab tube fit, goes without saying). Everything
else on the airframe made to at least that tolerance, will not necessarily fly
better enough so that one could tell the difference.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>MattK</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 2/10/2005 2:57:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,
DaveL322@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>For control setups, straight / symmetrical / equal / balanced / etc
is useful if for no other reason than as a reference and a good starting
point. From that starting point, I find adjustments to throws, rates,
expo, etc are more predictable to change the control feel / balance to what I
like, and I find that I need to use less "electronics" to get the control feel
I want. I am a firm believer in using the minimum amount of electronics
needed to get the control feel I want. There is no doubt in my mind that
the aerodynamics are not linear, the control systems are not always linear,
and the individual pilots perception of what is linear is usually different -
so it is really about tuning the control feel to what best suits the
individual pilot.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Changes to incidences and thrust to achieve a better state of trim are
also more predictable and repeatable when the plane is straight to be begin
with. My airplanes are usually geometrically straight on the test
flight, and then get tweaked and adjusted from there to fly straight in the
air (dynamic and static are different as has been discussed on this list -
things like spiral airflow).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Dave Lockhart</DIV>
<DIV><A title=mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net
href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">--------------
Original message -------------- <BR><BR>> This was basically my point. I
think we sometimes get beginners tooooo worried <BR>> about the
mechanical setup. Not to downplay the value of good mechanical <BR>>
setup...I think it's VERY important to have tight, slop free, true mechanics
<BR>> before we start messing with the radios... But I think there 's a
point at which <BR>> you're wasting both time and money. <BR>>
<BR>> Same goes for retentive straightness...there are tolerence to
measure...and <BR>> tolerences not to bother with. Once I'm within a
certain range...it's time to <BR>> fly. There's no point in measuring to
1/128th of an inch when lord knows the <BR>> edges of my monokote from
various color schemes and overlaps have more impact. <BR>> <BR>>
________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> From:
discussion-request@nsrca.org on behalf of Rcmaster199@aol.com <BR>> Sent:
Thu 2/10/2005 1:29 PM <BR>> To: discussion@nsrca.org <BR>> Subject:
Re: Linear output - was Notes to Self 3 <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> The
latter, in my view. <BR>> <BR>> Servo output to surface deflection
(mechanical set-up) is one thing. Stick <BR>> movement to surface
deflection, quite another. Not to belabor the obvious, we <BR>> have expo
galore available and each adjusts to his or her prefernce. <BR>> <BR>>
m2c <BR>> MattK </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>