• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Bouncy Planes - How To Fix Them?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tim, sorry about the miss use of your plane, as far as I am concerned this thread is ended, a very nice model that worked well for me except the original tailhook settings caused nose over on catching a wire.
 
Rich,
I am sure Tim does not mind you making changes, if it would help with a problem. Why do you not add this line 'empty_weight_CG_position= -0.060, 0.000, 0.000' and then use my tail hook settings and see what happens. The '-0.060' is just enough of a change (with this model) to cancel out the pitch (nose over) even if you hold the brakes (now 1.0) and give it full throttle. Try it as original ('0.0') and see what happens. Not sure if Tim will try to use any of this, as he might not 'do' carrier landings of war birds (and a tail dragger to boot). Or jam it full throttle with brakes on, either. But there it is, in black and white. Use it or loose it. What can I say.

I love to fly models and expect them to fly 'right'. If they don't I investigate and make the necessary changes where needed, somtimes determined by trial & error, and sometimes by pure 'logic' (ie: by thinking outside of the 'Airwrench' box). Then I offer my findings here and hope someone can come away with a smile after having some success after using my mods. And that is ALL I want/expect. Your smile.
Chuck B
Napamule
 
I've been following this thread, and I have noted that at times the exchanges have been a bit more "adversarial" than we tend to desire. Offer suggestions, and then let it go. When it starts looking like an argument I start looking for my locks.
 
Rich, I have noted your opinion. Please understand that we really prefer to only lock a thread by request when it comes from the individual that started the thread, or we decide that it needs to be done.
 
N2056, not a problem but I feel it a waste of time carrying on with this thread as it is going nowhere.
 
N2056,
This thread has taken a turn that I certainly didn't intend for it to take when I started it. Thanks everybody for the comments and suggestions and my apologies to Piglet for any inference that the Spad's specs were erroneous. If other people can land OK then it's operator error on my part. I'd prefer the tailhook placement debate be carried on elsewhere, so pls lock it up.
 
Okay. It's done. TARPSBird, I'm sorry it went south. Hopefully something is learned from this in terms of what not to say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top