Modonaut

Excellent- pleased to hear that! Yes, page 21,just got my copy and will read it. I must press on with my Super 60, domestic engagements and holidays will soon take their toll. Modonaut

Posted by ken anderson. on 12/07/2013 07:59:37: since wed night 10.30 ish everybox i click on the new look forum site-i get a window comes up asking me to take part in a modelflying survey......it only happens on the forum site ....so seems strange that is the only one out of all the other sites that i have as favorites etc......i've used IE for all the years i've been with a pc and never had a similar prob....i also use a fully paid up version of AVG........ ken anderson.........fully paid up dept... Thi is a so called browser 'add on' No Internet 'security' app will rid you of these - they probably finance them... You can disable them- Google the problem- it will tell you how to.

I like the burgandy colour- much better!

Posted by Ian Skeldon 1 on 11/07/2013 14:09:53: Hi Chaps, The reason the wing doesn't work too well with ailerons is more to do with the airfoil (Clark Y, I believe). This section doesn't lend itself too well to ailerons. A top sited spoiler working independantly on each wing might be more effective. However the charm of the Super Sixty is slow sedate flying, catching the odd thermal even and then those long finals where just the odd nudge of rudder will see it on the right path and all that's left to do then is to use throttle to maintain height etc, etc. If you really want a wing with ailerons I suggest that you use a semi symetrical airfoil and adjust the root ribs to seat onto the fuz. I did this a long time ago and was blesssed with a Super Sixty look alike which rolled very nicely but need more input throughout the flight (as you would expect). Hope the helps, Ian Thanks for your input Ian! Modonaut

Posted by Mike Etheridge 1 on 11/07/2013 11:15:55: Well I did think about the aileron issue but was not sure in the recent past what the problem was with the Super 60. The criticisms I read were not specific,modellers just suggested they did not like the aileron versions. About 7 years ago I bought an electric 3 channel Jamara Cessna 182 at the Sandown Park show. It was ideal to fly at the Common Broughton Gifford in Wiltshire where some of my relatives live. I noted at a later date that a 4 channel aileron version was available and so I bought one on the internet without carrying out an inspection first. Unfortunately the wing dihedral was / is the same as the 3 channel version and hence the flying characteristics of both models were much the same and there was little benefit with the ailerons, you certainly could not roll the 4 channel version but it flew OK. Now I assume you cannot / should not roll a Super 60 with ailerons? On the strength of this assumption I thought about treating an aileron wing for the Super 60 in the same light as the Cessna 182 with appropriate but more dihedral than is suggested. The Cessnas are both gathering dust in the loft. They both have suffered from stress fractures in the light foam wings and certainly the aileron wings folded up on one flight but have been repaired. MJE I don't think it's a case of should not roll, but more cannot roll, with extreme dihedral. Generally the more aerobatic a model, the less dihedral you'll find. I would guess that these kits where a 3 channel has been 'converted' to a 4 channel haven't really been tested to see if ailerons actually work properly, especially if as you say the dihedral is the same. So, if you intend in getting the ailerons to work properly don't increase the dihedral as obviously loads of dihedral was used in the early days for initial free flight stability and in early r/c as an aid coupled with rudder to execute a turn. Basically excess dihedral will fight the effectiveness of the ailerons. As I said I'm no expert, but I do know it's a complicated subject and other factors influence how an aircraft behaves- the shape of the fuselage for one thing. Lets face it the Super Sixty is quite a blundering thing with slab sides and thin, no profile tail and fin. Modonaut Judging from what happens on my Phoenix simulator with the 'high wing trainer' I wouldn't attempt to 'roll' a model with loads of dihedral anyway as height is lost very quickly during the process... In any case I don't think we were actually taking about doing an actual roll but more the effect on aileron control. On the simulator rolls are easier with the low wing trainer especially if you are quick! Edited By Modonaut on 11/07/2013 12:58:30

Posted by Colin Bernard on 11/07/2013 11:47:38: Modonut - no hunting needed - the user panel options have just moved to the red menu strip at the top of the screen. Have to agree on the comments re the use of red. I was always taught that in screen design never use red for text unless it relates to a fatal error, otherwise what colour do you use for a genuine error? Other than that I like the new layout. Edited By Colin Bernard on 11/07/2013 11:49:00 Yes, thanks I did already find that, but no link to 'Posts' unless you go to the 'Bookmarks' where I'm not sure this is the right link. You can go to 'Forum' where surprise, surprise you find a list of your posts... Edited By Modonaut on 11/07/2013 11:57:55 Edited By Modonaut on 11/07/2013 12:00:12 Edited By Modonaut on 11/07/2013 12:02:12

Posted by WolstonFlyer on 11/07/2013 11:32:11: Using the clever developer tools in Google Chrome - here is a version in Blue but with the very top menu tools still in red, It is a bit softer on the eyes and represents the sky that we all love to fly in Click for a big version. Yes, I did a few versions but thought I'd better not post them designers generally don't like their toes being trodden on! The red links are a definite no no.

Where's the user panel that was on the top left hand side? That was a quick link to all the handy areas you'd want to access quickly. Now it's become like a Myst type computer game where you have to scratch your head and hunt around for what you want. User interfaces should be totally, totally transparent to the visitor, otherwise they just go somewhere else. I'll say this- I was really impressed with the useability of the original site, where you could quickly load up new photos and quickly access your posts etc, without having to read through a load of instructions. Reminds me of the old days where Adobe made retrograde 'improvements' to their software where functionality was greatly impaired and then in the next upgrade they were further improved by putting features back to where they were in a previous but one version... Edited By Modonaut on 11/07/2013 11:52:17

As a graphic designer myself my first impression was that something had gone wrong what with all that red... The red colour screams too much (red for danger) and also it takes away from the impact of the sites logo which is also red... I can't remember what the predominant colour was before- black or a darkish blue would be better. Perhaps I should keep my mouth shut!

Here's a good article I found on dihedral- http://www.mnbigbirds.com/images/PDF%20Files/Dihedral_Art.pdf The problem with the Super Sixty is that it's a design that has been 'messed around' with from being originally a free flighter to then being a 3 channel R/c and then to a 4 channel r/c- all these versions would need different degrees of dihedral. Technically my wings are polyhedral as the dihedral doesn't start until two rib bays out from the centre section- but I've increased the wing tip height from 1/2 in to 5/8 in. It'll be interesting to see how it flies...

Posted by Mike Etheridge 1 on 10/07/2013 23:39:42: I have heard before on a Super 60 blog that ailerons do not work particularly well on the Super 60. I had intended to make up my wings possibly with ailerons but increase the dihedral from that recommended and just use the ailerons for trimming. Alternatively I thought of mixing in rudder movement with the ailerons with the wing set to the recommended dihedral? My Super 60 repairs were almost completed last weekend with just the front canopy replacement outstanding but partially finished. Engine is re-fitted on a new ply mount and just needs a new propeller. MJE Edited By Mike Etheridge 1 on 10/07/2013 23:43:22 Hi Mike, I'm no expert on model aerodynamics (obviously) but I'd though increasing dehidral would reduce effectiveness of ailerons and that may have been the problem in the past (partially) with older Super Sixties, as they may well have had 'vintage style dehidral', ie a huge lot of it. The excess dehidral was designed to aid the 'self recoverery' of the model out of a bank and would therefore have fought against effective aileron control. My particular version shows 1/2 in at each wing tip which is not a lot. Most aircraft are flown both with rudder and ailerons, so I see no harm in mixing them on your set up if you can. Glad to hear you are re-building your 60. Cheers, Modonaut

Both wings constructed now with just servo mounts to finish. The total all up weight so far is 2 lbs- that includes fuselage, all wings, tailplane, fin and wheels. Probably finished weight I would guess will be between 3 and 3 1/2 lbs.

Hi Ian, thanks for those observations! I don't have a clue as to how this thing will fly but will bear in mind your warning about ineffective ailerons- maybe that's why the plan shows ailerons the full length of the wing... As for the wing section, the Clark Y is not uncommon on very many models of a docile nature. Already noted the need to strengthen up the wings as you can see from the past blog. The undercarriage will be made up from piano wire and I will very slightly extend the ground clearance from that shown on the plan with the dural one supplied. As for thrust angles, we planned to take care of this with the Tx settings. Time will tell. I'm curious, Ian, as to how you came to build more than one Super Sixty? One observation re the ailerons. There appears to have been many versions of the Super Sixty and I would guess earlier versions had much more dehidral than the current 4 channel version I'm building, where the dehidral is a mere 1/2 in under each tip. Looking, just now, at a Spitfire from the front I'd say that a model at just over 60 in would have more than 1/2 in dehidral at the tips. I know they are very different animals but its interesting to note. Edited By Modonaut on 09/07/2013 21:02:43 Edited By Modonaut on 09/07/2013 21:05:52 Edited By Modonaut on 09/07/2013 21:13:13