Official Freewing F/A-18C Hornet 90mm EDF Thread

[Evan D]

Mine has been successful about 25?times. :Cool:

[xviper]

I believe I lost my F5 for the same reason a couple years ago. I don't believe the servos used in flying stabs on these foamie jets are beefy enough to take a max thrust dive. Lesson: Don't keep full power when the plane goes into a dive, especially a steep one where terminal velocity can be very high.

[F22trainer]

As a professional pilot, I respectfully disagree with you. There are two schools of thought on this however, I've never found nor attended your school's "pitch for altitude, power for airspeed." I dare say that it is not the professional aviator's school of thought. Why? Because it is unstable, the exact opposite of what one wants on an approach. If you pitch for airspeed, that now becomes a constant, using power to arrest or increase your descent is now your biggest variable. If I were to use pitch for altitude, I am trading airspeed for that altitude. I am either decreasing airspeed for increased altitude or increasing air for increasing my descent. In either case I have to now adjust my power setting to either not stall, or to not over speed my flaps, gear etc...

... if you are below the glide path and are slow, if you pitch down to increase speed, what happens - you are farther below your glide path. On an instrument approach that represents unstable.
Pitch plus power equals performance.
If you are above a glide path and you are fast - are you going to pitch up to slow down? If so, now you are farther above the glide path. I find a lot of “professional pilots” have it wrong. It is an argument since the birth of flight.:Thinking:


I knew I’d get a few nibbles - there are times when that statement is correct. The constant angle approach depends on a stabilized airspeed and descent. that depends on a descent rate of approx. 333 feet per nm. Period. If you are pitching for a speed, because of a low power setting - you’re screwed.
And as a highly sought after Professional Instructor, I can say that with confidence. The airlines I flew for used it and the FAA backs me up on it - as an Aviation Safety Inspector, they are actually Designated Examiners. And if necessary, I know a few test pilots and Top Gun Instructors who have pointed out I am one of the few instructors that actually understands the entire concept.
So while you may disagree, you might consider trying to teach a student to complete a constant angle ILS approach by pitching for airspeed and watch what happens. One of the hardest maneuvers for new airline pilots is a visual approach - for exactly the same reasons

[Carrerabike]

Having issues with my ailerons, all other surface controls work, flaps, rudder, gear, elevator, ailerons jittery, Motion is saying bad board maybe would replace, don't want that issue on new plane for 479, any suggestions?
Hooked up servo lead to tester and I get nothing, any suggestions would be helpful.
Thank you
Joe

[janmb]

... if you are below the glide path and are slow, if you pitch down to increase speed, what happens - you are farther below your glide path. On an instrument approach that represents unstable.
Pitch plus power equals performance.
If you are above a glide path and you are fast - are you going to pitch up to slow down? If so, now you are farther above the glide path. I find a lot of “professional pilots” have it wrong. It is an argument since the birth of flight.:Thinking:


I knew I’d get a few nibbles

The essential point I think you are missing is sink rate / inefficient / dirty flight surfaces, which is what you want on final. The word glide slope is massively misleading, since you don't glide a plane when landing. You sink. As in, you exploit the area between laminar flight (glide) and a complete stall.


And yes, if you are above the desired energy (altitude x speed), you absolutely fix that by increasing pitch (and temporarily lower throttle too) in order to get rid of the excess speed and make your wings less efficient (more sink rate)

[Bobaroo]

Lost my BA today on her second flight of the day (5th flight overall). I was at 400' on the downwind when I started a right bank and a 45° downline for a high-speed pass. She would not pull out of the dive and went in hard. Totally destroyed. She hit so hard that a chunk was taken out of the metal fan shroud. I've never had that happen before.

I did not loose radio signal, I was still able to bank the plane. But I believe the elevator servos had met their match for torque. I had even turned up the throw on elevator and moved my CG back about 5mm prior to flying today as I felt the book rates for elevator were too low, and the CG was nose heavy. She was still a little nose heavy as inverted flight required a small amount of down to stay level.

I had not had any elevator issues prior to this incident. But this was the first time I did a full thrust power dive. She hit at full thrust (no time to react when I finally realized she was not pulling out) and made a pretty nice divot in the dirt. There was even a small mushroom cloud of dust after impact. It was pretty impressive. I have pictures of the crash site, but HS won't accept them. See this post on RCG:

https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...postcount=1710

The "Word" from many on these forums is that those stock $10 Servos are adequate on these Foamies and there is no need to replace them with more expensive ones with higher torque. According to them, it is a waste of time and money because there is no 'Difference' in servo quality between manufacturers. Search these forums and you will see that I am not making this stuff up. Sorry you lost your jet Pat.

[crxmanpat]

I will say that I had 4 previous flights with no issues, also doing the same maneuver, but this was the first time I did it from an altitude above 200'. I had a lot of momentum going into and during that turning dive as I started at about 400' this time, and she just wouldn't pull out. I was running fully stock 6S with a RoaringTop 6250 lipo.

[Evan D]

My f-5 had a bad issue with full flaps blanking the stabs and loosing control.

I believe I lost my F5 for the same reason a couple years ago. I don't believe the servos used in flying stabs on these foamie jets are beefy enough to take a max thrust dive. Lesson: Don't keep full power when the plane goes into a dive, especially a steep one where terminal velocity can be very high.

[Evan D]

Quite an insinuation as usual Bob... If you are trying to put words in my mouth I will clarify that mine have been okay so far on 145+ passes and steep dives. I will say I moved my pushrod in a hole on my elevator servos which does take some load off. I also balanced it a little aft which does too.

The "Word" from many on these forums is that those stock $10 Servos are adequate on these Foamies and there is no need to replace them with more expensive ones with higher torque. According to them, it is a waste of time and money because there is no 'Difference' in servo quality between manufacturers. Search these forums and you will see that I am not making this stuff up. Sorry you lost your jet Pat.

[Phantom]

... if you are below the glide path and are slow, if you pitch down to increase speed, what happens - you are farther below your glide path. On an instrument approach that represents unstable.
Pitch plus power equals performance.
If you are above a glide path and you are fast - are you going to pitch up to slow down? If so, now you are farther above the glide path. I find a lot of “professional pilots” have it wrong. It is an argument since the birth of flight.:Thinking:


I knew I’d get a few nibbles

You honestly bewilder me. You gave two examples in order to support your point, however both were just examples of approaches that were already unstable. The answer to your first example is yes you are going to pitch down for airspeed, or more importantly to reduce the AOA on the wing, as approach speeds tend to be on the slow side of the lift equation to began with. Simultaneously you are you going increase power to climb back to your glide path. Now once your pitch is set for your Vapp then you will not change it, now your only job is to increase of decrease power to remain on the glide slope.

Your second example, should follow the same logic for correction, and by your own design is also unstable. Again the answer is yes you are going to pitch up, while simultaneously decreasing power to prevent ballooning farther above the glide slope.

Maybe this will help you visualize this concept of correct aircraft control,...;)

[Phantom]

My f-5 had a bad issue with full flaps blanking the stabs and loosing control.

So far I've been lucky, I use 80 degrees of flap on my F-5 no issues she's one of my favorites!

[mjet21]

Quite an insinuation as usual Bob... If you are trying to put words in my mouth I will clarify that mine have been okay so far on 145+ passes and steep dives. I will say I moved my pushrod in a hole on my elevator servos which does take some load off. I also balanced it a little aft which does too.

I see no insinuations here... I just see facts:

Fact #1: A lot of guys are saying that all servos are created equal...
Fact #2: A lot of guys are loosing their jets because of weak servos...

145+ MPH likely pulling 2, 3 G's on an 8 LB jet with $20 elevator servos ($10 / side Evan), that sounds a lot like High Stakes Gambling with an almost $1000 jet to me!!

I hate to see extremely competent pilots crash, but even more upsetting is to see people trusting substandard equipment in high performance jets!
It reminds me of the "LX" days...

[Evan D]

Interesting first post, welcome to the threads. I’ve own just about every FW Jet and FL plane, sometimes multiples. I’ve had a few servo issues. Stab and aileron servos on the F-14 were sloppy and I replaced them with other FW servos (newer digitals of the same) from a crashed F-104. Had the rudder servo on my L-39 develop poor centering and replaced it with another same servo. Am I living on the edge? I don’t think so. I weight risk and make my decision. My choice my risk. And there is still some risk even if you replace every servo in the F-18 with $100 servos and make you $500 plane a $1500 one. Might as well replace all the push rods and the horns on all the surfaces too. While you’re doing that add better hinges too...

Not too sure your facts are really facts either. Not all servos are equal, who would say that? And I don’t know that there have been that many documented crashes from servos.


And Bob is the master of insinuations.

[F22trainer]

You miss the point. As I new pilot I was taught the same pitch for airspeed and power for altitude. And, if you are operating on the back of the power curve that is a proper solution. But as a blanket concept, it is not always true. Proper aircraft control is based on an intended flight path. The more correct concept is pitch plus power equals performance. Therefore you need to initially pitch for an altitude and adjust power for the desired airspeed. Becoming an instructor teaches you that.
I can set up an approach and never touch the power, under certain conditions, because I know for a given weight and power setting my pitch need never change.
I set a pitch and power setting and the result is a given speed, depending on the phase of flight.
There are still times when I use airspeed to get my pitch - for example, in the traffic pattern on downwind, I have entered at 1500’ AGL at 130 KIAS. In level flight I extend gear and add 10* flaps to slow to my next speed of 120KIAS. It is coincidental that when Abeam my touchdown point I am at 120 KIAS ad I allow the nose to drop in order to maintain 120 KIAS - the result is approx. 500 FPM descent. It works the same on baseleg, add 20* flaps and bleed enough speed using pitch to obtain my desired 110 KIAS which results in a 500FPM descent rate. Works the same for final - flaps 36, power to 350 ft.lbs torque, slow to 85 KIAS and then pitch to maintain my final approach speed of 85 KIAS.
The point is that technique does have a time and place, but it is not correct to say it should be used all of the time.

[F22trainer]

You honestly bewilder me. You gave two examples in order to support your point, however both were just examples of approaches that were already unstable. The answer to your first example is yes you are going to pitch down for airspeed, or more importantly to reduce the AOA on the wing, as approach speeds tend to be on the slow side of the lift equation to began with. Simultaneously you are you going increase power to climb back to your glide path. Now once your pitch is set for your Vapp then you will not change it, now your only job is to increase of decrease power to remain on the glide slope.

Your second example, should follow the same logic for correction, and by your own design is also unstable. Again the answer is yes you are going to pitch up, while simultaneously decreasing power to prevent ballooning farther above the glide slope.

Maybe this will help you visualize this concept of correct aircraft control,...;)

You are bewildered because you know I am right...it is not a correct blanket statement, that you always pitch for airspeed and power for altitude.

[mjet21]

Interesting first post, welcome to the threads. I’ve own just about every FW Jet and FL plane, sometimes multiples. I’ve had a few servo issues. Stab and aileron servos on the F-14 were sloppy and I replaced them with other FW servos (newer digitals of the same) from a crashed F-104. Had the rudder servo on my L-39 develop poor centering and replaced it with another same servo. Am I living on the edge? I don’t think so. I weight risk and make my decision. My choice my risk. And there is still some risk even if you replace every servo in the F-18 with $100 servos and make you $500 plane a $1500 one. Might as well replace all the push rods and the horns on all the surfaces too. While you’re doing that add better hinges too...

Not too sure your facts are really facts either. Not all servos are equal, who would say that? And I don’t know that there have been that many documented crashes from servos.


And Bob is the master of insinuations.

That's exactly what I do with my jets! That's the only way I can trust them not to fail.

That's what I have to do with the LX jets but at least the initial cost is a lot lower...

That is why I claim that 'FW' jets are overpriced, based on the fact that I have to replace the electronics to buy the level of confidence that I need. But when I call them "Overpriced" people jump on my case and call me sourpuss... You go figure!

[Evan D]

I don’t go figure. Your Jet to do what you want with as mine is mine. So what all are you doing to your F-18 before the maiden?

[Woodcock]

You honestly bewilder me. You gave two examples in order to support your point, however both were just examples of approaches that were already unstable. The answer to your first example is yes you are going to pitch down for airspeed, or more importantly to reduce the AOA on the wing, as approach speeds tend to be on the slow side of the lift equation to began with. Simultaneously you are you going increase power to climb back to your glide path. Now once your pitch is set for your Vapp then you will not change it, now your only job is to increase of decrease power to remain on the glide slope.

Your second example, should follow the same logic for correction, and by your own design is also unstable. Again the answer is yes you are going to pitch up, while simultaneously decreasing power to prevent ballooning farther above the glide slope.

Maybe this will help you visualize this concept of correct aircraft control,...;)

Ya know, I had just landed at North Island and had a date to meet two of my life long friends for dinner and drinks at a place called Ray Delgado, (Brazilian Barque). My friend Ray was a former Marine Core F-18 pilot that then flew a 737 for South West Airlines. My friend Rob was having a 2 week stay in San Diego on vacation, he was a school friend that had became a 747 captain for Cathay Pacific. We had a pretty nice dinner, a few drinks, I was feeling pretty happy actually as the flying debate started. First came the obvious dos and don'ts followed by a raging debate, debating approach tactics, flying tactics and all kind of obvious rules. Then came the insults subtle at first, followed by more rudeness, and obvious insults, loudness prevailed. This was Ray and Robs debate, I could barely say a word.

Then there was me no slouch, 13K plus hours, I never get into this kind of BS, as basically I do what ever I feel needs to be done in any given situation. I think I was the highest time pilot there, (not sure about Rob, you collect a ton of hours crossing the pacific in 747's). I finally told them to be quite. Bought them one last round of drinks.

Moral of this story is it was pretty obvious both of these guys new how to fly, well at least Cathay Pacific, and South West thought they did. Me not so much LOL.

Best Regards
Woody

[F22trainer]

You honestly bewilder me. You gave two examples in order to support your point, however both were just examples of approaches that were already unstable. The answer to your first example is yes you are going to pitch down for airspeed, or more importantly to reduce the AOA on the wing, as approach speeds tend to be on the slow side of the lift equation to began with. Simultaneously you are you going increase power to climb back to your glide path. Now once your pitch is set for your Vapp then you will not change it, now your only job is to increase of decrease power to remain on the glide slope.

Your second example, should follow the same logic for correction, and by your own design is also unstable. Again the answer is yes you are going to pitch up, while simultaneously decreasing power to prevent ballooning farther above the glide slope.

Maybe this will help you visualize this concept of correct aircraft control,...;)

Yup, and it’s pilots that think they know it all that are the most annoying to those of us that do.
Give me 2 hours in a simulator and I will put on my Instructor hat and prove it. You’ll be glad you did.

[Elbee]

Love all you guys, even like the debate; however, the discussion you're having is similar to why Tamms and I occasionally take separate vehicles to the same event. LOL Best, LB