Edge 540 Dihedral ok?

[davidchoate]

I know quite a few of us built the Edge recently. I did mine as an RC conv. Turned out beautiful. All I need is to get a motor. My question, and I remwmber Mitch talking about it, is the plan dihedral appears a bit extreme. I cut it by half because I am powered ,but am curious as to why so much. the full scale has like none at all? I understand what it does, but was it necessary? or is it a mistake in design. It not only takes away from the scale appearence, but I have performance concerns too. Anyone with any knowledge on this who can share.?

[hunterdude]

Yes...the kit is supplied with rubber and prop for free flight...after you wind and release it nothing but the trim you build into it keeps it flying right side up...Except dihedral...the kit makers put extra dihedral in for free flight in hopes the flyer will be successful...is most noticeable in low wing sport planes and fighter planes...if you have added ailerons on your RC conversion the freeflight amount of dihedral will not be needed as you can trim for level flight on the go....excessive diehdral will have a negative affect on certain maneuvers like axis rolls...a dead flat wing will roll like crazy as if the fuse is a football thrown as a perfect spiral...the down side is she will be very touchy on the sticks and if you desire straight level flight you may be making frequent adjustments to stay level...some people say you have to constantly fly the "wing" meaning she is very maneuverable...but not super relaxing to fly.. I think you made a good move taking some but not all out....hope this helps

[Bill Gaylord]

I'll agree with Hunterdude, in that adding dihedral will not make it much easier to fly, with ailerons. Thanks to very tall grass, I still have mine. I finally had managed to get one good flight out of it, and it had to be flown very carefully. Certainly not the fun aerobat I was expecting. I'd say the little Guillows FW190 was a much easier to fly and stable plane as an rc conversion, than the Edge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1HAsCA ... e3uS3fLSoA

[davidchoate]

Thanks. I do have ailerons. I made them big too, and used the larger than scale tail. I am glad i lowered the dihedral, because I dont expect to be advanced enough for acrobatics till I get in a club. I am pleased with the airplane, and considering the modifications I did, The weight is more than acceptable. The fuselage has plenty of room, and the control surfaces are large. I am a self taught pilot. I expect to improve once im in a club. I got a good Tx Dx6i that can be plugged into another. It took me 2yrs. to be able to take off, fly around, and land with confidence. Landing was the hardest. Like I said. being in a city, with telephone poles, limited space, usually an athletic field, or a glf course with many trees. I think I did well. My one problem is that occasionally I have to go behind a tree, and tend to panic when I lose visual contact with the plane. I have flown real planes, and just like a car, in many ways, its harder when ur not in the thing. Have you ever tried to drive an RC car. Not easy. I have'nt tried any of my Guillows creations except FF models. I want to not ruin them. I worked very hard on them, and honestly, the first few i did were to teach me how to hook up, and add linkage,etc.. Also I have subscribed to several magazines. MAN, Electric flight. And That one that comes with the AMA.I have a problem. I have yet to make one under 70g's I had many micro failures due to this, and swore to only do 400 series, but I still am trying. Recently though I have learned of Rx boards that accept Esc for tiny brushless motors, so I think I can make it work. Just that the Spektrum one is $70 or so. The brushed 8mm motors will handle about a 50g plane max, and thats a high wing trainer.I have had reliability problems as well. espescially in the battery connectors. They make poor contact after plugging in and out a batter a few times.I like to use a regular type receiver, with 3.5g servos, but now I learn the mini servos use a higher amp draw. The 7.5 g spektrum servus are fine on anything but a micro. I call a micro anyplane under a 20
' WS.I have seen alot of Guillows cnv. on utube, but rarely do they go into the specs on the electric parts. I have learned much on my own. I went through alot of foam trainers. I had a Bnf Spitfire 16" WS. With the spektrum as3 axis control I think its called, and it did work. I was weary of learning on a warbird, but as advertized, the flight control made it almost feel like a larger plane, and was much harder to get into trouble, but I ended up breaking it after about 3 flights, but the parts are ok. And I have NEVER seen a Guillows plane in any magazine. I was reading a article of a conversion on a dumas piperJ-4. Very helpful. I feel like a traitor, but i got a Dumas Aeronca 30" ws, just because of this. I also got the walnut scale curtis hawk, cause it came with other kits in a E-bay purchase.

[davidchoate]

Thanx for the video Bill. I'd kill to have a flying field like that. Nice planes too.

[Mitch]

When I build this plane again (I have 2 more kits) I will follow Guillow's instructions for dihedral. I added a bit more (I ended up with more than I wanted) My model still flew okay, but the dihedral was excessive. My plane did not experience any "Dutch Roll" flew in a nice wide circle to the left and then straightened out. My wing loading was 1 g per sq. inch. That is the highest wing loading of any flying model I have, so the plane does not glide very long.

I believe it would be a handful to operate RC, good luck with that.

Here is a good picture of my "excessive, but flyable" dihedral:

Model is sporting a "display" 3 blade prop and spinner, held on with Guillow's blue rubber. Model flown with larger 2 blade balanced propeller w/o spinner and a lot more sport tan rubber. Model also has adjustment screws to adjust cowling for proper thrust angle.

Mitch

PS Nice video Bill

[davidchoate]

Thanks Mitch. And I dont know if it was the wing loading. I also noticed a not like a Typical flat bottom Airfoil. It appears an asymmetrical design. I guess taking an acrobatic Plan and making it rubber powered has many design hardships, and I suppose they did the best they could. I believe they should make some models to be RC electris. Dumas has a series of them; They all but told you how and where to mount the motor and servos in the Edge Plan. Another page , and there would be no need to figure it out for urself. Still one of my favorite builds.Very nice.looking.

[Bill Gaylord]

Nice builds David and Mitch. I actually spent a few moments on mine this evening. I had a red "Guillows" oval shaped waterslide decal, while applying decals to my Stearman. The red background on the Guillows decal blended perfectly with my red Edge, so it went on it.

Thanks Mitch. And I dont know if it was the wing loading. I also noticed a not like a Typical flat bottom Airfoil. It appears an asymmetrical design. I guess taking an acrobatic Plan and making it rubber powered has many design hardships, and I suppose they did the best they could. I believe they should make some models to be RC electris. Dumas has a series of them; They all but told you how and where to mount the motor and servos in the Edge Plan. Another page , and there would be no need to figure it out for urself. Still one of my favorite builds.Very nice.looking.

Good points. I imagine the airfoil was made to resemble scale, so I can't knock it there. If I built this plane again as an rc conversion, I probably would consider changing it to something a bit less symmetrical, but still capable of inverted. The way mine flew I would have never thought about trying to fly it inverted! I learned to just fly it very carefully, pretty much like my Avro Type F lol.