fom a By R. HW. Warring SPITE, the fact that design layout has become almost stancardised in nearly every class of model, every so often a new model which is different from the ordinary run of things docs appear and sets a new standard in that particular field, The “ Rudder Bug ” is one of those models. Just as the 1939 °° Zipper” started a new trend in ‘power duration layout, Walt Good's new machine has already been accepted as the “ Zipper” of radio control, Plans were published in Model Airplane News (May-June, 1949) and" Rudder Bugs" now Appear to outnumber any other single RC design, both in this country and in America, Eleven took part in the "49 Ameriean Nationals, and there must be three or four times that number already flying in this country Make no mistake. It as difficult to produce a design which is basically different from current practice and make it out-perform existing models. It fs easy enough to produce a model which is just different, but couple this with an outstanding flying performance and the achievement is then really worthwhile, The * Rudder Bug" achieves just that and it is difficult 1 see how any other high-wing RC design utilising rudder control alone can better it, So. just_as the “Banshee” inspired a whole host of free-lance power duration designs of similar layout some of the more successful RG jobs of the 1950 season will undoubtedly follow ™ Rudder Bug” lines. There is one point about RC work, however, which is flattering to those who specialise in it The model side of it is'comparatively easy. Virtually any power model of the right size which is reasonably Stable will do. The model has only to be made 10 fly, and there is a vast difference between just making ‘a model fly and trimming a model to have a up-top. contest performance in free-flight. The radio side is quite another question. ‘This is where the skill, experience and know-how 1 necessary, but as we are dealing with the model part of the combination this is outside the scope of the present analysis, The * Rudder Bug " has many features which were regarded as suspect until proved by flight tests and almost all, incidentally, have proved thatthe designer has been working along the right lines. First, and most obvious, is the tneycle under aD: jo. 1 WALTER a, “ G o RUDDER Bue BUG” carriage. Although this is not_new, the tricycle unit has not hitherto proved particularly successful for model. work The undercarriage is a very real problem on radio controlled models, for wing loadings generally work out in the region of 14-16 ounces per sq. fl, with a total weight of 3-4 Ib. upwards. Wing loading alone is no criterion for landing shocks, since a really rough landing may mean tha under- carriage unit is called upon to take a shock load of considerably more than the folal weight of the model. This, in fact, is one strong argument in favour of reducing total weight, irrespective of wing loading. The latter can still remain high to give a reasonably high flying speed to combat drift, ‘Well, the * trike ” undercarriage on the * Rudder Bug” ‘really does work. From any reasonable landing approach the model just stays. upright and rolls straight—upwind, downwind or sidewind irrespective. It needs a. very. severe nose-down touch-down—approximately 30 degrees—before it will nose over. And in the tests carried out so far there has been no. tendency for the model to tip to one side instead of rolling as was originally suspected, might happen. The layout of this undercarriage would appear to be just about the optimum. The nosewheel is well forward: ~some nine inches in front of the centre of gravity— with the two main wheels of fairly narrow track only just behind the ¢.g. On the test model, in fact, the c.g. was such a small distance in front of the main wheels that the model would almost balance with the tail resting on the ground. “There is really no need to have the main wheels much farther aft than this The wire sizes specified for the underca quite adequate age are Twain strut main legs are quite unnecessary. Nor is there any need to increase. the wheel diameter beyond the 3 in. specified. ‘The beatity of a properly-working tricycle undercarriage is that it only neces relatively small diameter wheels. he front wheel legs arc one feature which might be improved. As they are simple cantilever they will bend back readily on a stalled landing, so much so in some cases that the nosewheel will be forced back into the belly of the fuselage and damage the structure. Also, a8 specified, a solid wheel must be used as it is impossible to change a nosewheel, if punctured, without a major operation. involving theDecember 1949 removal of the whole nosewheel unit. Thus one has either to accept the inevitable that a really bad nose-down landing will bend the nose- wheel logs back-arel possibly cut a well in the belly of the fuselage for the whevl to fold back into and. bless the sumplicity of the scheme ; or devise a method of spring or shock-absorbing which will not be Unduly complicated The nosewheel is inewtably bound to come in for some hard usage, Properly rigged, the model should rest on the ground on a very slight nose-own attitude with the tailplane some four to five inches Clear. ‘There is actually no harm in having the fuselage approximately horvontal, as this yall shorten the (ake-off run. The wing is rigged at o deg. incidence. With a nose-down rolling attitude the angle of attack js actually negative, and the model runs a long way until the excess speed forces the taal down and lifts the nosewheel off the ground, putting the wings at a positive angle of attack, A take-off under such conditions is quite interesting. A long fast run, with the model sucdenly hopping off the ground straight into a good angle of climb. This method of rigging the wing at zero incidence is extremely gvod for models of this type, particularly ‘on the ghde. The moxiel will glide with the a positive angle of attack. In other words, the model will assume a nose-up sliding attitude, “Hence the Janding approach is just right to utilise the full enefits of a tricycle undercarriage. Provided the angle of glide is reasonably fat the model wall come in and touch down on the main wheel. This immediately pitches the model forwards on'to the nosewheel, whence the wings have at once assumed a nogauve angle of attack and thus lost their bite In other words, there is no tendency for the model MODEL AIRCRAFT to lift off again. I is posible, with a liule careful trimming for best glide approach, to get it to come in for a landing devoid of bounce. Hence, springing of the nosewheel, or even an airwheel there, is not really desirable as this may cause a bounce on its ‘own, Few models with a conventional underearriage can land on their own without bounce and often over-inilated airwheels are the chief contributing factor. With the wing nigged at 2ero, as alecady described, the tailplane is rigged ata. negative angle—2i degrees—to give the required longituclinal dihedral for stability. This rigging—wing 24 deg, different to tailplane, is absolutely correct for the sections used and the centre of gravity position given—37 per cent. chord. ‘This corresponds to a ghde attitude with the tailplane lifting slightly, ive. at a positive angle of attack, confirming that the whole model must slide nose-up. Rough calculations would indicate that the fuselage would be inchmed about 5 deg. rose-up. However, it is difficult to reconcile these egging, angles with the thrust line position given on the plans. ‘The thrust line is shown parallel to the fuse lage datum, i.e.. parallel to the vines, 99 that the tailplane is actually 24 deg, negative to the thrust. Even with moderate power this is bound to give a marked difference in trim between power-on and power-off (gliding) flight and, this was in fact, found In practice. Downthrust was needed to prevent a stall under power, even with the motor running welll retarded. ‘This downthrust should be at least equal to the tailplane negative incidenee and a figure of 3 deg. was subsequently adopted. Trimming out the power flight by adjusting the tailplane incidence is not recommended, for this will tend 10 steepen the glide and may reduce the The “Rudder Bug” Byi Walter A. Good 315