Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
ModelsRailroadsRockets
Radio Controlled
Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater Models
ModelGeeks.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Model Forum / Radio Controlled / Air Models / April 2004



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Whether to balance wings of different weights:

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Sisyphus - 01 Apr 2004 15:07 GMT
I have completed wing panels that differ significantly in weight.  A
63" wing span when assembled.  The wings are both balanced around the
4th rib, but one wing seems to weigh 2-3 oz more than the other.  I am
going to buy a grocery scale to measure with some degree of accuracy
what that difference is and consider adding weight to the other wing.

The heavy wing was built with twice the CA that the other wing was,
could glopping CA make that big a difference in weight once dry?
Dr1Driver - 01 Apr 2004 16:05 GMT
>I am
>going to buy a grocery scale to measure with some degree of accuracy

I'd use a fish scale.  Accurate to 1/2 ounce.

>The heavy wing was built with twice the CA that the other wing was,
>could glopping CA make that big a difference in weight once dry?

Yes.  CA "cures", it doesn't "dry".  If you use 2 ounces of CA while building,
you'll have 2 ounces when it's done.

If the wings are out 2-3 ounces, I'd balance them, but balance the whole plane,
not just the wing.  You'll find when the wing is attached to the fuselage the
lateral balance will be different.
Dr.1 Driver
"There's a Hun in the sun!"
Bill - 01 Apr 2004 19:24 GMT
Oh my god, I just fell off my chair!
That is the most stupid comment I have read this week.

Dr1, how do you come to such a ridiculous conclusion?

> CA "cures", it doesn't "dry".  If you use 2 ounces of CA while building,
> you'll have 2 ounces when it's done.
Dr1Driver - 01 Apr 2004 20:54 GMT
>Dr1, how do you come to such a ridiculous conclusion?

OK smart a.s, what's your opinion?  Some glues set by evaporation, some by
curing.  In the case of evaporation, a little weight is lost.  In the case of
curing, that you start with is what you end up with.  
Dr.1 Driver
"There's a Hun in the sun!"
M Dennett - 01 Apr 2004 21:42 GMT
Hey Bill, read Glue 101 before you type a whopper like your comment to Dr.
1. Why the heck would you write such a caustic response to him about
something about which you obviously know next to nothing?

CA polymerizes and solidifes when catalyzed by the presence of various
substances on the materials being glued, and/or when helped by a shot of
"kicker" which is an aromatic amine catalyst in a solvent carrier. It does
NOT "dry" which is a process whereby solvents evaporate leaving behind
solids. Adhesives that "dry" undergo a loss of mass equal to the solvents
lost. Adhesives that cure do not, except for perhaps negligible weight loss
due to small amounts of volatiles escaping.

If CA "dried" then try explaining how it can do that in 1 second, and why
thin CA "dries" the fastest.

Epoxies cure.

Epoxy paints flash off solvents first, then cure.

Polyester resins cure when catalyzed with (typically) MEKP.

White glue dries.

Plastic model cement dries.

Ambroid dries.

Nail polish dries.

Tremclad dries.

Mud dries.

CA cures.

Mike D.

> Oh my god, I just fell off my chair!
> That is the most stupid comment I have read this week.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> > CA "cures", it doesn't "dry".  If you use 2 ounces of CA while building,
> > you'll have 2 ounces when it's done.
Bill - 01 Apr 2004 22:05 GMT
DRY CA is considerably lighter than WET CA.

I would suggest you go and discover the meaning of the words WET and DRY!

> Hey Bill, read Glue 101 before you type a whopper like your comment to Dr.
> 1. Why the heck would you write such a caustic response to him about
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
> > > CA "cures", it doesn't "dry".  If you use 2 ounces of CA while building,
> > > you'll have 2 ounces when it's done.
Dr1Driver - 01 Apr 2004 22:10 GMT
>DRY CA is considerably lighter than WET CA.

Prove that with RELIABLE, FACTUAL statistics.  Let me see some manufacturer's
or research lab tables
Dr.1 Driver
"There's a Hun in the sun!"
Bill - 01 Apr 2004 22:17 GMT
Oh my god, I just fell off my chair again!
That is the second most stupid comment I have read this week.

> >DRY CA is considerably lighter than WET CA.
>
> Prove that with RELIABLE, FACTUAL statistics.  Let me see some manufacturer's
> or research lab tables
> Dr.1 Driver
> "There's a Hun in the sun!"
Dr1Driver - 01 Apr 2004 22:39 GMT
>Oh my god, I just fell off my chair again!

Oh, I get it now.  You're physically handicapped!  I'm so sorry.  Maybe you
need a Health Care Aide to help you up when you fall.
Dr.1 Driver
"There's a Hun in the sun!"
Paul McIntosh - 01 Apr 2004 22:52 GMT
Must be all that hitting your head when you fall off your chair that makes
you so dumb, I guess.

CA cures through a chemical reaction.  It has no water or solvents in it so
it can't "dry".

--
Paul McIntosh
http://www.rc-bearings.com
> Oh my god, I just fell off my chair again!
> That is the second most stupid comment I have read this week.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> > Dr.1 Driver
> > "There's a Hun in the sun!"
M Dennett - 02 Apr 2004 17:06 GMT
You need to protect your head when you fall off the chair.

Since I spend a good part of my time at work in a chemical laboratory, I
decided yesterday afternoon to "dry" some samples of various CA adhesives
and measure weight loss. I carefully weighed a few samples of thin and
medium CA on an analytical balance accurate to 1/10 milligram. These samples
were held in laboratory weighing dishes. To kick them off (as the surface
chemistry of a sterile weigh dish will not catalyze CA for ages or ever), I
treated several strips of paper with raw CA catalyst (no solvent, CA kicker
is usually about 2% catalyst and 98% solvent) which I lay across the top of
the weigh tin so that the catalyst (which is somewhat volatile) would do
it's trick overnight.

This morning I checked the samples, and they were all fully cured, hard as
nails. So I weighed them.

Gosh, surprise surprise! The weight loss varies between zero and one half a
percent. As these are small samples some of that 1/2% can likely be
attributed to weighing error. Some might be volatiles in the adhesive
wandering off. At that level who cares.

NO significant weight loss. In fact numbers like that equate to NO weight
loss.

So.. rather than continue to argue perhaps you should simply realize that
you have your facts wrong. This information could actually be useful to you.

And btw, I do know the difference between wet and dry. Do you now understand
the difference between drying and curing? Dr.1 does, Paul does, I do.

Mike D.

> Oh my god, I just fell off my chair again!
> That is the second most stupid comment I have read this week.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> > Dr.1 Driver
> > "There's a Hun in the sun!"
M Dennett - 02 Apr 2004 21:57 GMT
Wow, it got quiet here all of a sudden, didn't it?

<g>

Mike D.

> Gosh, surprise surprise! The weight loss varies between zero and one half a
> percent. As these are small samples some of that 1/2% can likely be
> attributed to weighing error. Some might be volatiles in the adhesive
> wandering off. At that level who cares.
Six_O'Clock_High - 02 Apr 2004 22:54 GMT
ROFLOL!
It never ceases to amaze me how many disdain hard factual data.  You have
spoiled their fun

> Wow, it got quiet here all of a sudden, didn't it?
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> > attributed to weighing error. Some might be volatiles in the adhesive
> > wandering off. At that level who cares.
Dr1Driver - 02 Apr 2004 23:37 GMT
>Wow, it got quiet here all of a sudden, didn't it?
>
><g>

<more grins>

Dr.1 Driver
"There's a Hun in the sun!"
Robbie and Laura Reynolds - 03 Apr 2004 02:44 GMT
> You need to protect your head when you fall off the chair.
>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> So.. rather than continue to argue perhaps you should simply realize that
> you have your facts wrong. This information could actually be useful to you.

Wow, that's great to know.  Back to the original question, go ahead and
balance your airplane laterally by carving out the wingtip of the heavy
side and/or adding pennies or lead to the light wingtip.  Make sure that
the engine and muffler are installed when you balance it.  But if I were
you I wouldn't be concerned about glue weight.  You probably didn't use
enough glue to make a measurable difference.
strathboy - 03 Apr 2004 18:48 GMT
I hope you wern't doing this on company time!

> > You need to protect your head when you fall off the chair.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> you I wouldn't be concerned about glue weight.  You probably didn't use
> enough glue to make a measurable difference.
M Dennett - 05 Apr 2004 15:02 GMT
You bet I was! We use enough CA around this joint that a little diddling
around here and there to learn something is no problem. Besides the owner is
an airpane fan. Our company back forty is a registered MAAC flying field, so
I also have no problem finding something to do at lunch.. snicker. Although
winter seems to be keeping a grip on us as this morning there is ice on the
cars and a -15C windchill reported. Grrr..

Mike D.

> I hope you wern't doing this on company time!
Alex Brewer - 09 Apr 2004 05:57 GMT
You lookin for any Industrial Engineers?  <grin>

Alex.

> You bet I was! We use enough CA around this joint that a little diddling
> around here and there to learn something is no problem. Besides the owner is
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> > I hope you wern't doing this on company time!
Charles & Peggy Robinson - 03 Apr 2004 20:10 GMT
  Hello Mike,

Good post, especially that first line.  (biiig grin)

   My first reaction when I looked at this thread's first couple of
messages was, "I know CAs outgas when they cure, so there must be some
loss of mass.  Probably not enough to measure without some extremely
high resolution scales, though."  Seem you've proved my conjecture to be
right.  Thanks,

  CR

> You need to protect your head when you fall off the chair.
>
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>>>Dr.1 Driver
>>>"There's a Hun in the sun!"
M Dennett - 05 Apr 2004 15:10 GMT
There may even be slightly higher losses than what I measured, but the point
is it seems like it is basically next to nothing as I'd consider losses like
2-3% to be effectively "no loss" in the greater scheme of things.

Mike D.

p.s. personally I use aliphatic glues to build wings but not due to the
above, rather because IMHO they end up tougher. But I do use CA to tack
parts (and my fingers) in place.

>    Hello Mike,
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>    CR
Don Hatten - 01 Apr 2004 22:20 GMT
Take a fresh bottle of CA, weigh it, squirt some accelerator into it (and
jump out of the way), and then weigh it again when it's set.  The bottle of
glue will weigh the same (if you take into account the amount that boiled
over and/or flew somewhere else).

or easier on the pocketbook

get a gram scale and an epoxy mixing cup, squirt in a gram or 2 of CA, hit
it with the accelerator and weigh it after it's set.  It'll weigh the same

Don

> DRY CA is considerably lighter than WET CA.
>
> I would suggest you go and discover the meaning of the words WET and DRY!
Doug McLaren - 01 Apr 2004 22:50 GMT
| Take a fresh bottle of CA, weigh it, squirt some accelerator into it
| (and jump out of the way), and then weigh it again when it's set.
| The bottle of glue will weigh the same (if you take into account the
| amount that boiled over and/or flew somewhere else).

Hey now -- quit trying to confuse the issue with easily verified
facts!

(:

Signature

Doug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com
There is no distinctly American criminal class - except Congress.
--Mark Twain

Oper8 On U - 01 Apr 2004 23:59 GMT
Isn't it the water in the air that causes CA to cure ?  If so the addition of
water molecules to the mix may actually result in
cured CA weighing more that liquid CA.
C.O.Jones - 02 Apr 2004 00:12 GMT
> Isn't it the water in the air that causes CA to cure ?

That's what I always understood.  But then, I'm no chemist.  Maybe the newer
stuff uses something else.

> If so the addition of
> water molecules to the mix may actually result in
> cured CA weighing more that liquid CA.

Would make sense to a point.  Next question would be how much of that water
evaporates as a result of the whole process?  But I'll let Bill answer that
one! :)
Sylvia Dulude - 02 Apr 2004 06:01 GMT
i just depends on how dry it is in your area.

I will always buy or fly a basement built plane then a garage built plane.

Reason why   does your basement jump in temperature or humidity as much as
your garage. ???

Assemble 2 exact shaped pieces of balsa with any glue you want (literally i
mean any glue)  keep one in the basement and the other in your garage then
compare after a week .

warp city here we come ....if you live in New Mexico don't even bother
answering this

my 2 CDNcent's

> > Isn't it the water in the air that causes CA to cure ?
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> evaporates as a result of the whole process?  But I'll let Bill answer that
> one! :)
MJC - 02 Apr 2004 14:41 GMT
   I doubt if your use of CA would make any measurable difference.
   What is MUCH more likely is that there is a difference in wood density
between the wood used on either side of the wing.
   This is not, however, a bid deal. Wings, for the reason mentioned above,
frequently need to be laterally balanced.
   The easiest and most accurate way to do that is to put assemble the two
wing halves together and then balance the entire assemble. You do NOT have
to weight anything; what you're going to see is that one side of the wing
will droop. All you have to do is start adding pennies (my favorite) or a
washers or whatever just inside the tip of the high wing until the assembly
balances. Then epoxy those weights inside the wing tip where you won't see
them once it's covered. KEEP IN MIND that epoxy has weight too, so just glue
in MOST of whatever weights you use and then check it again for balance once
the epoxy kicks. You might have it so close that just dabbing in more epoxy
will finish the balancing act.

MJC

> I have completed wing panels that differ significantly in weight.  A
> 63" wing span when assembled.  The wings are both balanced around the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> The heavy wing was built with twice the CA that the other wing was,
> could glopping CA make that big a difference in weight once dry?
jjvb - 02 Apr 2004 15:23 GMT
Wait until you have the plane finished and all together, then do a lateral
balance.  The lateral balance will change depending on other issues such as
engine and muffler location, etc.

John VB

> I have completed wing panels that differ significantly in weight.  A
> 63" wing span when assembled.  The wings are both balanced around the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> The heavy wing was built with twice the CA that the other wing was,
> could glopping CA make that big a difference in weight once dry?
strathboy - 03 Apr 2004 02:10 GMT
The drivel from some posters never ceases to amaze me. Who really gives a
damn about the miniscule weight of CA or  how much is applied in the process
of building two wing halves. I defy anyone to buiild two wing halves of
identical weight. Always balance your wings laterally and then the entire
plane. Maybe we can generate some posts on the differing weight of graphics
applied to the wing after its built and covered. Some just can't resist
flaunting their knowledge regardless of its relevance.  Give us a break and
keep it simple and pertinent like MJC.

> Wait until you have the plane finished and all together, then do a lateral
> balance.  The lateral balance will change depending on other issues such as
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> > The heavy wing was built with twice the CA that the other wing was,
> > could glopping CA make that big a difference in weight once dry?
Robbie and Laura Reynolds - 03 Apr 2004 02:45 GMT
> The drivel from some posters never ceases to amaze me. Who really gives a
> damn about the miniscule weight of CA or  how much is applied in the process
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> flaunting their knowledge regardless of its relevance.  Give us a break and
> keep it simple and pertinent like MJC.

Don't forget also that oil tends to collect more on one side than the
other, which could cause the plane to go out of balance.  And then it
really gets bad when bugs and grass seeds start to collect in the oil.
strathboy - 03 Apr 2004 19:03 GMT
......he/she said with tongue in cheek!!

> > The drivel from some posters never ceases to amaze me. Who really gives a
> > damn about the miniscule weight of CA or  how much is applied in the process
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> other, which could cause the plane to go out of balance.  And then it
> really gets bad when bugs and grass seeds start to collect in the oil.
David AMA40795 / KC5UH - 03 Apr 2004 05:00 GMT
When I built the wing panels for my Dynaflite Super Cub, I weighed the
piles of wood for each panel, shuffled parts ( it is easy to feel the
heavier wood ) between the piles to even the weight.  When the panels
were finished, they were within 1 oz of each other, and these panels
weigh about 30 oz each!

It is like building a straight wing - build it straight, do not try to
remove warps that get built in !!!

David

>The drivel from some posters never ceases to amaze me. Who really gives a
>damn about the miniscule weight of CA or  how much is applied in the process
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>> > The heavy wing was built with twice the CA that the other wing was,
>> > could glopping CA make that big a difference in weight once dry?
strathboy - 03 Apr 2004 18:46 GMT
David, you are one meticulous builder.. What was the weight differential
BEFORE you sorted the wing halves. Isn't it simpler to just plug in a tiny
bit of tip lead to balance the wing?  Unless you're flying a pattern ship in
competition, sorting balsa is hard to justify,
> When I built the wing panels for my Dynaflite Super Cub, I weighed the
> piles of wood for each panel, shuffled parts ( it is easy to feel the
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> >> > The heavy wing was built with twice the CA that the other wing was,
> >> > could glopping CA make that big a difference in weight once dry?
Charles & Peggy Robinson - 03 Apr 2004 20:41 GMT
   He's not alone.  Those of us who started in this hobby before ARFs
were available picked up this trick early on.  Dead weight is your
model's enemy!  Why add it when a little forethought can eliminate the
need?  Part of this hobby is the knowledge of a job done well.

  I have a Lanier Extreme Stick ARF that flew well but was noseheavy as
hell with a light .46 2-stroke.  I'm just finishing up the mod of moving
the servos back to under the h-stab in order to eliminate the 4 -5
ounces of weight I had to add back there to balance the thing.  I
already have the battery behind the wing, may have to move it further
back.  Won't know until I recheck the CG.

  Cheers,

   CR

> David, you are one meticulous builder.. What was the weight differential
> BEFORE you sorted the wing halves. Isn't it simpler to just plug in a tiny
[quoted text clipped - 55 lines]
>>>>>The heavy wing was built with twice the CA that the other wing was,
>>>>>could glopping CA make that big a difference in weight once dry?
strathboy - 04 Apr 2004 16:06 GMT
Charles, the knowlegeable builder ALWAYS does a pre-balance check BEFORE
permanently installing servos  and drilling the engine mounts.  Takes a bit
more time and effort but if ARFs are your idea of RC modelling, you  should
have lots of the former.

>     He's not alone.  Those of us who started in this hobby before ARFs
> were available picked up this trick early on.  Dead weight is your
[quoted text clipped - 71 lines]
> >>>>>The heavy wing was built with twice the CA that the other wing was,
> >>>>>could glopping CA make that big a difference in weight once dry?
Charles & Peggy Robinson - 06 Apr 2004 17:26 GMT
 Strathboy,

   This your second post to me, telling me to locate my servos to
achieve the correct balance point.  The first was in regard to the Kadet
Senior ARF, now this one.  In both cases you've shown your ignorance of
the models in question.  Both of them come out of the box with the servo
trays permanently installed and with pushrod materials supplied to reach
those trays.  Seems logical to try these servo locations before electing
to modify the model.  In the case of the Extreme Stick, the servo tray
is located about as far back as it can be, under the wing, even so, the
stock model is noseheavy with any engine.

  As for drilling the engine mount; in the case of the KSA, the engine
is located on the mount so as to place the prop drive washer just clear
of the cowl and still allow cowl removal for maintenance.  In the ESA, I
used a light DB mount with the engine as far back on it as it would go
and still allow the fuel lines to clear it.  The ESA required major
surgery to balance it without ballast.

  Your sarcastic remark about ARF building comes as a surprise to me,
coming from someone who thought that preselecting wing wood in order to
have the finished wing panels come out equal in weight was unusually
meticulous.  Aren't you the guy who suggested that adding weight to the
finished wing was a lot easier?

  You really ought to educate yourself a bit more before about the
subject(s) before you expose your backside for all to see.

  CR

> Charles, the knowlegeable builder ALWAYS does a pre-balance check BEFORE
> permanently installing servos  and drilling the engine mounts.  Takes a bit
[quoted text clipped - 88 lines]
>>>>>>>The heavy wing was built with twice the CA that the other wing was,
>>>>>>>could glopping CA make that big a difference in weight once dry?
strathboy - 09 Apr 2004 13:56 GMT
Charles, wouldn't you expect the producers of  ARF's to take balancing into
consideration when they're designing them?  Just imagine, "major surgery"
required. As for adding weight to balance wings, I've never had to add
anything more than an ounce to compensate for whatever created the imbalance
be it glue, wood composition or whatever. Its really inconsequential. I must
admit however, that the constraints you describe (fixed servo trays  and
prop clearance ) would preclude implementing my suggestions. I do indeed
have limited experience with ARF's (only 2) and both have been very annoying
including the reasons you mention. Both were low wing, had numerous design
flaws and high wing loadings. They also had short lives. Charles, don't take
take the sarcasm (bait) in newsgroup comments too seriously.  Remember,
hypertension can seriously shorten your flying years.

>   Stramounts and thboy,
>
[quoted text clipped - 118 lines]
> >>>>>>>The heavy wing was built with twice the CA that the other wing was,
> >>>>>>>could glopping CA make that big a difference in weight once dry?
David AMA40795 / KC5UH - 05 Apr 2004 04:43 GMT
The first piles comparison started at 5oz difference!  To be even
pickier, I moved the heavier ribs toward the center of the panels.  I
could do this since all but the outer 2 ribs and root ribs were
identical !

And like Charles said, I do not like to fix the radio gear location
UNTIL I know about where the plane will balance.  Sometimes this still
does not help - I just finished assembling a Sig 4*60 with a Magnum 91
4-stroke in the nose.  Even with the battery against the firewall, I
still have to add ~1oz of lead to the nose.  I'd hate to see the chunk
of lead required to balance this plane with a 60 2-stroke!

David

>David, you are one meticulous builder.. What was the weight differential
>BEFORE you sorted the wing halves. Isn't it simpler to just plug in a tiny
>bit of tip lead to balance the wing?  Unless you're flying a pattern ship in
>competition, sorting balsa is hard to justify,
Dan Thomas - 09 Apr 2004 20:29 GMT
> The first piles comparison started at 5oz difference!  To be even
> pickier, I moved the heavier ribs toward the center of the panels.  I
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> still have to add ~1oz of lead to the nose.  I'd hate to see the chunk
> of lead required to balance this plane with a 60 2-stroke!

Some folks seem to be worrying way too much about lateral balance. In
full-scale aircraft maintenance we pay no attention to lateral
balance, and close attention to longitudinal balance. In an FS
airplane, the 30-pound battery is off to one side, sometimes the same
side the solo pilot sits on, along with most of the instruments, and
flap motors and autopilot stuff and so on might be in one wing or the
other. When we weigh the airplane we might find a 30 pound difference
between the mains of a 1400 pound airplane, and notice little or
nothing in flight.
    It's the fore/aft imbalance that's the killer.

   Dan
John Alt - 09 Apr 2004 21:09 GMT
> > The first piles comparison started at 5oz difference!  To be even
> > pickier, I moved the heavier ribs toward the center of the panels.  I
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> nothing in flight.
>      It's the fore/aft imbalance that's the killer.

And these are aircraft your concerned with tracking in both inside and
outside loops, right?
Dan Thomas - 12 Apr 2004 16:28 GMT
> > > The first piles comparison started at 5oz difference!  To be even
> > > pickier, I moved the heavier ribs toward the center of the panels.  I
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> And these are aircraft your concerned with tracking in both inside and
> outside loops, right?

   Good point. Four of our FS airplanes are Cessnas, non-aerobatic,
and two are aerobatic Citabrias. None are laterally balanced, but in
flight the Citabrias can be kept in line with normal control inputs,
since the pilot is on board and can see any deviation. For an RCer,
watching from the ground, it's more difficult and if lateral balance
will help, then it should be done, as you say.

 Thanks
    Dan
Six_O'Clock_High - 13 Apr 2004 06:35 GMT
Most of the rider scale pilots I run around with use fuel tank selectors to
burn of the heavy wing.

> > > > The first piles comparison started at 5oz difference!  To be even
> > > > pickier, I moved the heavier ribs toward the center of the panels.  I
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>   Thanks
>      Dan
strathboy - 10 Apr 2004 01:31 GMT
Pitch is where its at!!!
> > The first piles comparison started at 5oz difference!  To be even
> > pickier, I moved the heavier ribs toward the center of the panels.  I
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
>     Dan
strathboy - 10 Apr 2004 01:29 GMT
That's interesting. I just completed my 4 star 60 and it balanced perfectly
with an OS 61 2 stroke. NLR (no lead required)
> The first piles comparison started at 5oz difference!  To be even
> pickier, I moved the heavier ribs toward the center of the panels.  I
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> >bit of tip lead to balance the wing?  Unless you're flying a pattern ship in
> >competition, sorting balsa is hard to justify,
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.