Rudder reactions

[JoeAirPort]

The CAP snap stuff is BS. I've been flying a 74 inch CAP232 for three years, the same one.....throwing the thing all over the sky. It only snaps only when I tell it to. It does some things clearly better than my other planes. Knife edge on a rail, point rolls, harriers so locked in that they can practically be done blind folded. Upright and inverted flat spins, tumbles like crazy, waterfalls, upright and inverted elevators...on and on...uh well hovering and torque rolls is a little tough compared to my Edge, I'll give you that one.

If something is wrong with the plane or the design is just crap, the snap is probably going to be an issue. It's a beautiful aerobat, one I will always be flying. I guess I got lucky and bought a great design from the get go (Kangke, a little heavy but very good design).

[p sme]

what some others said...coupling could be caused by cg, thrust line etc. I have seen many caps that fly perfectly...no unwanted snaps etc. Its just a matter of not having a POS design.

[Temptation]

	Quote: Originally Posted by thaflyer
	Often refered to a SNAP 232's. I found out why and I am agreeing with that statment.

I beleive that most manufactures have fixed the old snapping problem. That is an old, old problem.

My 40% Carden Cap 232 does not snap in any situation that would not cause any other 40% plane to snap. Have you flown a Cap with this problem? If so which one was it? Also, keep in mind that to high of a wing loading will cause any plane to snap.

As for the original coupling problem. My Carden Cap needed some, just like most other planes. I actually used my 10X's programable mix 6 (function 56) The reason I chose this mix is because it is a graph, which allows you to increase the mix percentage as more rudder is given. My mix starts at 0% at center stick travel and ends with 5% up elevator at full rudder stick travel. This is nice because the more rudder you apply the more elevator you will need to keep the plane on track.

Hope this helps,

Mike Darr

[crhammond]

I have the GP Cap580 (99.5" wingspan DA100 w/smoke, 27lbs.) Mine has a little KE couping to the belly but it flies GREAT. No snappy habits at all, very easy to fly and land, very crisp and precise and flies very light. My CG is at recommended which is very close to neutral.

The "snappy cappy" stuff is BS. I think there were some older designs that had scale stab placement and were heavy that gave the Cap a bad rep. Mine does do very nice precision snaps - but you have to make it. As with most Caps the elevator is very effective and you have to get used to that feeling. It doesn't stall abrubtly or drop a wing it just kind of mushes forwards.

The mixes I am using in my 9303 are as follows:
Rudder to Elevator is linear (same as Mike's description - more rudder = more up elevator) at -10% (it adds a very tiny amount of up elevator - you have to put your hand on the elevator to feel it - you can't really see them move...)

I have a down mix of Throttle to Elevator that comes on at low throttle and applies down elevator (4 clicks or less) of -15% - again this does not move the surface much but you can see it. This is for down lines and also works great for landings.

Not sure that will match the smaller cap... but there they are.

[Baron]

George Hicks once did an experiment on Cap 232 coupling... if you look at the fuselage cross section aft of the canopy, it is very flat on the bottom and very rounded on the top (like a crude airfoil). Force air to flow over this cross section (ala a sideslip), and it will create a force towards the top of the aircraft, behind the CG, contributing to the significant nose-down pitch coupling. George put a trip strip along the crest of the turtle deck and the pitch coupling was reduced.

[Temptation]

	Quote: Originally Posted by crhammond
	I have a down mix of Throttle to Elevator that comes on at low throttle and applies down elevator (4 clicks or less) of -15% - again this does not move the surface much but you can see it. This is for down lines and also works great for landings.

Yes, Yes, I forgot to mention the old low throttle to down elevator mix. I program that mix into all of my planes, but as crhammond said, it does help when landing the Cap due to the very authoritive elevator.

By the way both of the mixes that I talked about are on at all times, and I have not ever had any problems with that. Some people may like to asign the mixes to a switch, and that is o.k. also.

Mike Darr

[Temptation]

	Quote: Originally Posted by Baron
	George Hicks once did an experiment on Cap 232 coupling... if you look at the fuselage cross section aft of the canopy, it is very flat on the bottom and very rounded on the top (like a crude airfoil). Force air to flow over this cross section (ala a sideslip), and it will create a force towards the top of the aircraft, behind the CG, contributing to the significant nose-down pitch coupling. George put a trip strip along the crest of the turtle deck and the pitch coupling was reduced.

I am curious. What is a trip strip? Is this something that someone should consider adding to a Cap, or is it best to leave it alone, and mix out the coupling? I am sure this trip strip isn't very pleasing to the eye either.

Mike Darr

[Baron]

A trip strip is basically a fence to 'trip' or turbulate the flow, so it was a little artificial ridge on the top of the turtledeck. I do not know how high of a fence George used. This did not eliminate the coupling, but it reduced it enough to take notice to fuse cross-section as a contribution to pitch coupling. It's cool to experiment with that type of thing, but I think multi-point mixing works well enough for most everyone that just wants to fly - Cap 232s are sweet competition planes once the mixes and thrustline are set.

-Baron

[Shawn Berkheimer]

	Quote: Originally Posted by JoeAirPort
	The CAP snap stuff is BS. I've been flying a 74 inch CAP232 for three years, the same one.....throwing the thing all over the sky. It only snaps only when I tell it to. very good design).

I think that some of the oldtimers are going to remenber the Cap 21. especially kits from Great Planes, Byron and Model Tech. All those were reletivly smallish and had a high wing loading but this is where it all started and the Byron and Model Tech at the time were considered giant scale. Take the Model Tech for example. It had about 850 squares powered by a .90 and weighed 9 to 10 lbs. thats where the snappiness came from. The Great Planes Cap 231EX ARF from just a few years back was fairly snappy too. But for those of us that were flying back in the late "80s the Cap 21 was usually refered to as the Snap 21 and it had more to do with the wing loading of the available kits at the time.


Shawn

[JimC-MD]

I started flying in 1985. I never had a cap before. I was one of the people at the clubs I belonged to that was asked to first flight or check models out, so I had flown quite a few OPPs (other peoples planes). I was always able to handle them easily but did not really enjoy them. Always keeping an open mind, I have watched as the models have evolved and convinced myself to give one of the newer generation Caps a try. I am sure there are better platforms out there, but so far this model has proven to be a lot of fun. One of the reasons in my choice of a Cap was to help dispell some of the fear of plane types at our club. One of the members has a GP .40 Cap that is heavy. It is a real handful to fly. Every time he sees this one in the air, he jokingly says it makes him sick! He cannot believe they are the "same" plane. They are not IMO once you get past the name.

[TRuss]

Back in the day, pretty much any scale aerobat that belonged to an average guy had a heavy wingloading. Back in the late 80s early 90s a 60 size plane was pretty big, and 90 size plane was really big a not common at all. At least at my field. Scale aerobats were always difficult, because the planes were heavier, the control surfaces were smaller and the engines (nobody flew electric) were less powerful and computer radios were reserved for only the very best. Planes like the Cap 21 were only for the most advanced pilots, much like alot of low wing planes back then. And planes like a .40 sized Pitts S-2 would be damn near unflyable. So alot of some of these modern misconceptions are from what used to be truths back in the old days.

[TazmanianDevil]

Maybe, the weight of the engine is the couse of all the truble
Like you said you only need 50%,the prop is maybe too big for this plane and wants to torque it all the time especialy when he's in knife edge
How many weight you need to put in the tail so you can balance her
And maybe its all the problems together,balance,weight,triming.
Try and work for every problem once in a time and see if it works.
Over power some times can make allot of truble.
Thanks
Adi