Wot4e incidence

[Geoff S]

@Engine Doctor  You're right, but I'd love to know what contsmibation  means 😜   It's a lovely word, and I'm delighted that, as an electrically powered model builder/flyer, I avoid it.

[Engine Doctor]

🤣 Dont know what happened there ? Should reads as "contamination"  prob fat finger syndrome again using my tablet .

[Learner]

On 28/01/2024 at 11:59, Arthur Harris said:

A question I would like the answer to, as well, as I'm thinking of getting one as a step up from the Riot.

Don't think a wot 4 foamie would be a step up.

Why not try a Ruckus, think its 20mm shorter wingspan than Riot so in your masterplan you could get all Riots banned for being too big as well!

 

[Engine Doctor]

Have to agree. The Wot 4 E is imo just inferior to the Riot . The Rukus would be better . Better still a propper built Wot 4 ,Acro Wot or a propper Panic  if you can find one

[Geoff S]

58 minutes ago, Engine Doctor said:

Have to agree. The Wot 4 E is imo just inferior to the Riot . The Rukus would be better . Better still a propper built Wot 4 ,Acro Wot or a propper Panic  if you can find one

When I wore out my first Riot (for some reason, the ailerons became reversed - I never worked out why or how) I took it apart to salvage what I could (the undercarriage is on my Liddle Stik) the fuselage has a substantial plywood skeleton which makes it very strong.  You only have to take out the steel weight at the front to get the CoG back a bit and increase the throws a bit to make it very agile.  I never moved up to putting a 4S LiPo in any of mine but I would think that's another step you could take.  The foamie Wot4 is NOT a 'step up' from a Riot.  Nothing wrong with the Wot4 (I only have a wooden one (actually two) ) but it's just a similar model.

[Erfolg]

Here is a picture of the set up I am using to measure the AoA. I just use a couple of spirt levels a few pieces of spars, some cards to establish the 0-0 level of the wing. I set the tail plane level, then set the wing spars to 0-0. Pack up the wing spirit level to level. Measure the packer. The rest is just trig (sine = O/H), (Tan= O/A the difference is significant at model level).

 

On some other set ups I jst use the long spars packings, a steel rule, and trig ( again using measurements to form triangels0 although 0-0 is often what I am seeking (remembering on sections such a E205, Clark Y, and Selig) are lifting at ) 0-0, by quite a few degrees.

 

Just a comment on the Wot 4E being a step up from anything, puzzles me. The Wot 4 is the easiest model I have ever flown, The thick wing with a well rounded LE makes for a stall resistant model.

 

Another thought, back in the day many stunters used NACA0018 type sections as the drag worked well in the down leg in square loops, wing overs, the well rounded LE helped in the snap movements from transition from horizontal to vertical travel without a stall.

 

 

 

 

[Geoff S]

I just use a spirit level on the tailplane and my Robart Incidence meter on the wing.  A smartphone with a suitable application will do the job just as easily and quickly.  It's even easier now that I have my adjustable model stand, and using magazines as packing is no longer needed. 

 

 

[Erfolg]

Geoff, I do not have a Robart Incidence meter. I would rarely make use of such a device, that for me it is an extravagance.

 

I certainly concede that it is far more convenient. At a cost, both financial and storage. I guess it does everything my temporary, ad-hoc arrangement does, quicker.

 

Is it more accurate, probably not, but potentially yes. Everything depends in my case on my fastidiousness. IMO for model aircraft, I am not striving for minutes and seconds of arc, in measurement accuracy. Plus I do not and cannot achieve very high levels of build accuracy, because of my lack of abilities and that both wood and polymers are not known for the dimensional stabilities.