Dave Seay asks: >Ok, now that Model Aviation published that article supporting increased >dihedral in full house ships, who's going to start manufacturing wing rods >at 10 to 15 degrees?
We had a 10 degree carbon wing rod of our own design and manufacture in our old 2-meter Monarch quite a few years back. It also had some interesting anti-split features that worked quite well. However, although it was not all that difficult to manufacture, it was just enough of a nuisance item (not enough profit in it to make it worth the time and trouble) that we switched to one of Don Richmond's excellent aluminum rods. He did make it special with the 10 degree bend for us. As far as the myth about ailerons needing minimal dihedral, we disproved that one many years ago with our old Monarch 'CX', the last of the wood-wing Monarchs. It had 3" wide full-span flaperons, all the way to the tips, and the exact same polyhedral setup that the 2-channel Monarch 'C' used. Hands-off stability was the same for both versions, the roll rate of the 'CX' using ailerons alone (no rudder input) with no differential was about the same as for the 2-channel 'C' with rudder alone. If the ailerons are designed so that they are sufficiently efficient, there is little or no trouble with adverse yaw, and therefore no trouble with large amounts of dihedral. With rudder added to the aileron, the roll rate of the 'CX' was in the "Pitts Special" category. The overall handling and stability of the 'CX' were excellent. However, it used the same older series of airfoils as all the other wood-wing Monarchs (as well as the 2-meter Monarch), which limited the launch height and high speed performance. The production costs of making pre-sheeted wood-skinned wings was way too high, and the work of making all those flaperons was asking a bit too much of our customers. We found that certain brands of C/A accelerator could cause cracking in the special fittings we made to couple the inboard and outboard flaperons across the polyhedral breaks. We also found that we could make a glass-skinned wing more consistent, cheaper and lighter than we could make a pre-sheeted balsa skinned wing. The net result of all of this was the replacement of the Monarch 'C' with the Monarch 'D' and 'D-lite', and the replacement of the 'CX' with the Wizard. The 2-meter Monarch was replaced with the 2-meter Monarch 'D', and eventually the 2-meter Spectre. >...and who's going to buy them? That's the real problem. If you folks don't buy something in sufficient quantities for the manufacturer to cover their material, labor and especially their overhead costs, and still make a reasonable and fair profit, it sooner or later ceases to be produced. Even the folks who do this "for fun" and don't expect to make any money at it sooner or later learn that there's an awful lot about the kit business that simply isn't fun, especially when they realize that they're shipping money out of their own pocket out the door with each kit. Just like certain laws of physics, there's just no way to get around certain laws of economics. Don Stackhouse @ DJ Aerotech [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.djaerotech.com RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
