<!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 6.00.2900.2722" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In the '70's George Albright designed the Utopia
(probably the first complete ready to paint pattern offering) which used a
flying stab. I flew them for a couple of seasons - the servos / linkages really
weren't good enough back then and stab flutter was a concern, even with proper
stab pivot placement and stab balance. As obvious from the number of jets flying
successfully with flying stabs, that problem is solvable. (Although I've seen
several flying stab flutter failures on fun-fli airplanes.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>However, while the neutral feel was fine, low speed
effectiveness was poor - requiring large angles of deflection for take-off,
landing, and spin entry. (I know - this is counter intuitive.) Of course, this
exasperated the linkage / servo strength issues. I retrofitted one of these
airplanes with a conventional stab / elevator and it flew the same - except for
much better low speed elevator response. Bottom line - the flying stab provided
fewer advantages than disadvantages for pattern in the days of light speed
60-size pattern. With today's equipment and slower speeds - maybe?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Earl</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=bob@toprudder.com href="mailto:bob@toprudder.com">Bob Richards</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, October 18, 2005 10:45
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Stabs</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>It has been tried before, way back in the 70s as I recall. I think Bob
Violet might have sold some hardware to do it. I know he designed a
pattern plane that was featured in one of the magazines back then that had a
flying stab. I know the glider guys use full flying stabs a lot, but for drag
reduction mainly. Not sure why it would not work, but I suspect you would not
get the same "feel" as you would with a conventional stab/elevator.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>With a conventional setup, you are able to play with the camber of the
horizontal surfaces, which can be used to trim the downlines for hands
off.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Someone correct me if I am wrong, but when wing tubes became prevalent, I
believe someone (I think Chip Hyde) experiemented with wings that rotated on
the tubes instead of using ailerons. That did not work well, from what I
understand.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bob R.</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR><BR><B><I>jeffghughes@comcast.net</I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<DIV>Now that a lot of 2M planes are going to removeable stabs, it seems a
short step to full flying stabs. Is there any advantage to this type of
stab? Seems like it almost would be easier set up, you wouldn't need to
worry about wing to stab
incidence.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>