RCP Mig29 V4 Stock build and NAMCV2 slow flight comparison

Hi everyone -

Great day for evaluating some slow flying characteristics at the field today... :)

It has been a big source of frustration for me over the last few weeks/months to be able to do a valid "slow flight" fly off between a stock and modified plane of the same type that were of almost the same weight with the same power system.  Either I had the wrong planes with the right wind conditions or I had the right planes with the wrong wind conditions... :/  Anyway, the "park jet planets" aligned today and I was finally able to get some good slow flight testing and evaluation done today, right planes, right conditions... :).

The gist of this post is not so much about comparing two different Migs, but proving to myself that smaller elevons and ailerons do not negatively impact slow flight handling.

I was so happy today to finally have two planes with pretty much identical setups other than the size of their control surfaces to prove to myself once and for all that what I had always known would be proven true.  

So I decided to fly some maneuvers that were easily repeatable, I essentially flew a zig zag/slalom from one end of the field to the other, alternating 90 degree left and right turns followed by a 180 degree turn at the end to fly back the other way and repeat the same.  I found that about 35-40% throttle was about as slow as I could go without the planes falling out of the sky.  It was just mostly a matter of feel I guess, you get to the point where it feels like you might start losing control and then just add a little power til it flies properly.

I was essentially looking for a couple things, how crisp and solid did my control inputs feel and how well did the plane maintain energy through multiple maneuvers?

So here is what I found starting with the stock Mig29 V4.  The first turn or two were OK, but after that without an increase in power, the plane had a tendency to want to not only tip stall, but just stall in general as it lost speed and energy quickly.  It also felt sluggish and almost a bit sloppy as I went through repeated turns.

With the NAMCV2 with smaller elevons and ailerons, control was much crisper, more direct in fact and only when the speed bled off after about the fourth consecutive turn did it feel sloppy and need more power to get the speed back up.  The V2 held it's energy much better and longer and tendency to tip stall was almost non-existent until it got to complete stall speed.  

In the discussions I have read against smaller elevons and ailerons,  the argument presented was that larger surfaces moving less were better for slow speed flying and handling than smaller surfaces moving more.  My experience not only today but throughout all the testing and flying I have done with planes with smaller elevons and ailerons says this is not the case, at least for how I like to fly and what I expect and observe of my planes.  

So did I need more stick movement with smaller surfaces over the larger stock surfaces?  Not really, the plane just responded quickly and with less slop and drag with the same stick movements as used with the stock plane.

I'm sure someone smarter than me (perhaps my friend Stephan who often stays at the Holiday Inn Express and has read the "Big Book of Aerodynamics" might know... ;) ) can tell me if putting a large surface at less deflection causes more or less drag than a smaller surface moving more.  I have written and reported "ad nausea" that I find smaller elevons and ailerons to be more crisp, precise and efficient than larger elevons and ailerons, often needing the same or even less deflection to get my plane to fly how I want it to.

So a smaller surface moving the same or less than a larger surface is always going to cause less turbulence and drag, therefore allowing for crisper handling and better energy maintenance as my plane goes through the air, at least in my experience.

So please don't think I am trying to tell you that if you build and fly a plane with large or stock control surfaces you are going to be disappointed, build your planes and fly them to suit your flying style and enjoyment.  Just know that if your plane is not meeting your expectations, there are plenty of other options out there.  As both Stephan and I have said before, don't let fear and what the "everyone else" is doing hold you back if you want to try something different, foam is cheap, hack up an old plane if need be, follow and explore what you think will work, no matter what I or anyone else says.  The worst thing that can happen if try something else, it cost you a bit of foam and glue and you learned something in the meantime... :)  

There is no better way to prove or disprove a theory whether it is yours or someone else's than to try it out and see what happens as your plane flies around.  Like I have said, you might be amazed at the reward for the risk of a sheet or two of foam and some glue... :)

Anyway, a very fun day at the field and a very therapeutic way to finally get rid of some "park jet frustration"... :)

Cheers,

Scott