Mike’s impressions of a few popular SA models
April 2006 133
[[email protected]]
Radio Control Scale Aerobatics Mike Hurley
Despite its reputation as a snappy airplane, the CAP 232 can be one of the most stable
and precise aerobatic airframes available.
Brazil’s Fabio Trento pilots the author’s CAP 232 in the 2002 Tucson Aerobatic
Shootout. Fabio lost his CAP during practice and borrowed Mike’s to finish the contest.
I’M NOT SURE about the other specialinterest
columns in this magazine, but it
might be helpful to some readers to
remember that the information in the Scale
Aerobatics (SA) column is my opinion
based solely on my experiences. With that
disclaimer …
I get many questions from readers and
from pilots I meet while flying about what
airplanes I like and which ones to avoid, so
I thought I’d share some of those thoughts
with you. I hope you’ll understand that my
thoughts and experiences may not be the
same as yours. That’s perfectly okay.
Flight performance is a perception and
perceptions differ. This overview is meant
to give you a basic understanding of how
each design varies and help you make a
decision about your next airframe.
In the next two SA columns I’m going
to highlight four types of airplanes, giving
you my impressions of them and revealing
a bit about how I like to set them up. With
any given design there are basic
similarities and vast differences in flight
performance when comparing brands and
sizes. A 25% CAP will have some of the
same nuances of a different brand of 40%
CAP, but the overall experience may be
completely different. So although I may
like one brand or size of CAP, I may not
recommend another. Just because brand
“A” performs well (or poorly) does not
mean all CAPs will.
For this exercise I will be discussing
only models that have wingspans
exceeding 80 inches. I don’t have enough
experience with the smaller models to
make a judgment about their performance.
CAP 232: This model is much different
from most airplanes we fly in competition
because the flying surfaces are located
relatively far from the thrustline. Most SA
model designers today prefer airplanes that
have a more linear relationship in
thrustline and flying surfaces. With the
Yak-54, the engine, wing, and tail are
close to the centerline of the fuselage.
Despite the odd positions of
components, the CAP works for me! A
nicely tuned and trimmed 232 can be as
effective in competition as any other
design out there.
CAPs tend to have a bit more pitch
coupling than other SA models, but none
of the five CAPs I’ve owned has required
134 MODEL AVIATION
The Edge 540 has a reputation as one of the best 3-D and Freestyle airframes around,
and it’s one of the most neutral for learning how to Torque Roll.
The author piloted this Edge 540 to win
several Freestyle contests.
more than a 12% up-elevator mix to the rudder. I’ve never had
one that required roll mix, but they often require a 1% downelevator
mix to the throttle at idle. This helps mix out the
tendency to pull out on downlines and helps prevent excessive
flare on landing approach. Once trimmed and mixed, the CAP is a
neutral aircraft with excellent roll and pitch characteristics,
making rolling turns look clean and even.
I think CAPs have an advantage compared with other designs
when it comes to snap characteristics. Snaps can be quick but
controllable. They start and stop rapidly, making it clear to the
judges that it’s a snap and not a roll. The pitch in a CAP’s snap
does not land you off-line, but it’s clear that that model has indeed
pitched.
Negative snaps can be a bit harder and may not exit cleanly. At
first, negative snaps may tend to over-rotate until you get some
practice. But for the most part, when flying in the upper classes in
which snaps are in nearly every figure, a well-practiced CAP pilot
will have an advantage.
Some of the smaller CAPs have had a reputation for being
snap-happy: snapping when you least expect it. And I have piloted
some that were a nightmare to fly. It’s unfortunate that this
perception has soured the airplane’s reputation across the board,
but I assure you that this is not the case with all brands and sizes
of CAP 232s. Any of the 35%-40% CAPs out there are fantastic,
with forgiving tendencies, and they don’t tend to snap
unexpectedly.
In 3-D I’ve had mixed experiences with the smaller (30% and
down to 72 inches in wingspan) CAPs, where some were stable
and forgiving and others could be nearly impossible to manage in
high-alpha (HA) flight. However, in regards to the larger models
the CAP is still among my favorites for 3-D. HA is stable and
controllable. It’s one of the most stable HA platforms available.
And pitch authority is as good as it gets, making for great
Waterfalls and quick stand-up Torque Rolls.
HA knife edge can be a bit harder than with some other
models, and the CAP is one of the most difficult with which to
manage a clean Torque Roll. It has a tendency to want to flatten
out to the belly and fly away. Rolling Harriers are clean and easy
to do, but if I were building a CAP today I’d probably go with
some oversized tapered ailerons as many of the Extras now have.
For whatever reason CAPs have dropped out of favor in the
last few years, and there aren’t many of the larger airplanes
available on the market today. I probably wouldn’t recommend
that you buy one of the smaller versions because of the
inconsistencies from brand to brand, but for my money a 35% or
40% CAP 232 is still at the top of the list when it comes to overall
performance. If you can find a clean, used one, it might be one of
the best values to boot.
Edge 540: I’ve owned several Edges ranging in size from 25%-
40% and have flown many of the sizes I haven’t owned. I won the
Northeast Regional IMAC (International Miniature Aerobatic
Club) title in my Sportsman year with a 36% Edge 540. Edges
have that close-to-the-thrustline design I discussed in the
preceding, but for some reason they are not as neutral as you
might expect.
With the Edge I’ve found that your trimming and mixing
numbers can lull you into a false expectation. Pitch and roll mixes
may have relatively low numbers when you mix them for pure
knife edge, 5%-8% positive pitch, and 2%-6% opposite roll. But
in use the Edge does not like pitch, roll, and yaw inputs to be
initiated together. I’ve found that once the pilot starts to mix
inputs during flight, his or her trim mixes do not hold true.
During a Rolling Circle where the pilot needs to impart roll,
pitch, and yaw together at varying intervals, the Edge will change
coupling relative to the amount of simultaneous inputs and stray
off course, causing the pilot to fight or chase the airplane.
Rolling Circles seem to be the biggest problem, but I’ve found
that many radiused maneuvers are more
difficult to keep clean, even, and online
with almost any brand or size of Edge
540. In my early years as a Sportsman
pilot those traits were not evident because
the required figures were not that
complex. However, for the higher classes
some maneuvers are much harder than
they would be with other airframes.
Edges have no bad habits when it
comes to snaps and can be clean with
basic maneuvers such as Lines,
Hammerheads, and Straight Rolls. The
biggest complaint that most pilots have
with the Edge is that it does not want to
spin. Trying to go into a spin maneuver
often results in an elevator with no break
or roll. The trick is to use the rudder
during the entry, but it’s still difficult to
score well with a 540.
As with most models, brands and sizes
of Edge airframes vary a great deal in
performance, but in general the Edge is
known for its reputation as an exceptional
3-D model. In spirit I might agree with
that assessment, but for me it is not the
ultimate 3-D airframe.
Most of the Edge airframes are
extremely stable in HA flight. Many Edge
designs are close to rock solid in HA and
others are similarly unstable. Torque Rolls
are usually neutral and almost as easy as it
gets. For me those two advantages are
where the Edge 3-D performance stops.
Pitch authority is lacking, and I found this
to be a great handicap in many 3-D
situations such as pop-ups, Waterfalls,
Parachutes, and 3-D Spins.
If you want to learn Harriers and
Torque Rolls, some models of the Edge
540 may be the best choice. But for all-out
3-D or for precision flight, my assessment
is that there are better choices out there. I
spent two seasons fighting an Edge in the
Unlimited class, and when I switched to
another design my performance improved
overnight.
That’s all the space I have for now, but in
the next column I’ll share my reflections
on the Extra 300 series$10,000
Joyce Garfinkel - FL
In memory of Dan GarfinkelWilliam T. Frantz - WA
Robert M. Gellart - IN
Felix J. Gora - OH
Michael Lee Gottfried - OH
David A. Jacob - FL
Nathan T. Lewis - WA
John P. Rheiner - TXBen Alexander - GA
William H. Asplund - CT
Dan Ausley - FL
Paul R. Bastek - MD
Russell C. Behr - AL
Lewis R. Berman - AZ
Jerome Bernstein - FL
A. R. Booth - IN
James Borre - IL
David E. Butters - PA
Michael J. Chaparro - FL
Robert M. Chesnalavage - TX
James Conroy - NY
Norman L. Crosby - CO
Wiley R. Davenport - MI
William E. Davis - CA
Alfred Delgado - PR
Denny L. Dock - MI
James S. Doty - IN
Richard D. Dragin - CA
Sidney Erickson - CA
Donald J. Evans - CA
John H. Falb - CA
Gregory S. Fanaza - CT
Joseph Foyst - IN
Dean Fuller - CT
Jeffrey E. Gagne - AZ
Donald G. Garofalow - NJ
Johnny W. Gay - FL
Bob Gieseke - TX
Gerald M. Gregorek - OH
Mark Guay - MA
Stefan Gutermuth - NJ
Robert I. Handler - NC
Tom Hartvigsen - TN
Steven G. Hayes - CA
Wallace H. Henderson - FL
Barry L. Henrickson - ND
Christopher Hickok - OR
Donald G. Hines - MI
Cody Horn - IN
Donald D. Howard Jr. - MI
Lloyd N. Jones - OK
Ronald A. Kampner - NY
David Kern - IN
Lew Kezeor - CA
Wan S. Kim - CA
John W. Knutsen - NY
Greg S. Lewis - CA
Gary L. Lindholm - TX
Daniel T. Linscott - MA
Lucky Jim Lucas IV - CA
Steven L. Madsen - IA
John S. Masters - MI
Mike Mcauley - CO
Alex Milionis - NJ
Robert Morris - NJ
Jerome Ohalloran - IL
Greg Otto - GA
Charles M. Patterson - GA
Robert Patukonis - NH
Alfred R. Prudhomme Jr. - MA
Roger F. Reid - NV
Charles G. Roberts - VA
James L. Russell - PA
Guy R. Scott - IN
Steven J. Shauver - IN
Donald R. Stackhouse - NV
Calvin Starr - GA
Clarence Stephens - OH
Mert Thayer - Il
Mir Verner - MN
Joseph Wagner - MD
James Weaver - IN
Kenneth B. Weaver - AZ
Bill Williams - IL
Larry L. Wringer - MI
F. R. Yoho - OH
Albion Smith Jr. - GA
Edition: Model Aviation - 2006/04
Page Numbers: 133,134,135
Edition: Model Aviation - 2006/04
Page Numbers: 133,134,135
Mike’s impressions of a few popular SA models
April 2006 133
[[email protected]]
Radio Control Scale Aerobatics Mike Hurley
Despite its reputation as a snappy airplane, the CAP 232 can be one of the most stable
and precise aerobatic airframes available.
Brazil’s Fabio Trento pilots the author’s CAP 232 in the 2002 Tucson Aerobatic
Shootout. Fabio lost his CAP during practice and borrowed Mike’s to finish the contest.
I’M NOT SURE about the other specialinterest
columns in this magazine, but it
might be helpful to some readers to
remember that the information in the Scale
Aerobatics (SA) column is my opinion
based solely on my experiences. With that
disclaimer …
I get many questions from readers and
from pilots I meet while flying about what
airplanes I like and which ones to avoid, so
I thought I’d share some of those thoughts
with you. I hope you’ll understand that my
thoughts and experiences may not be the
same as yours. That’s perfectly okay.
Flight performance is a perception and
perceptions differ. This overview is meant
to give you a basic understanding of how
each design varies and help you make a
decision about your next airframe.
In the next two SA columns I’m going
to highlight four types of airplanes, giving
you my impressions of them and revealing
a bit about how I like to set them up. With
any given design there are basic
similarities and vast differences in flight
performance when comparing brands and
sizes. A 25% CAP will have some of the
same nuances of a different brand of 40%
CAP, but the overall experience may be
completely different. So although I may
like one brand or size of CAP, I may not
recommend another. Just because brand
“A” performs well (or poorly) does not
mean all CAPs will.
For this exercise I will be discussing
only models that have wingspans
exceeding 80 inches. I don’t have enough
experience with the smaller models to
make a judgment about their performance.
CAP 232: This model is much different
from most airplanes we fly in competition
because the flying surfaces are located
relatively far from the thrustline. Most SA
model designers today prefer airplanes that
have a more linear relationship in
thrustline and flying surfaces. With the
Yak-54, the engine, wing, and tail are
close to the centerline of the fuselage.
Despite the odd positions of
components, the CAP works for me! A
nicely tuned and trimmed 232 can be as
effective in competition as any other
design out there.
CAPs tend to have a bit more pitch
coupling than other SA models, but none
of the five CAPs I’ve owned has required
134 MODEL AVIATION
The Edge 540 has a reputation as one of the best 3-D and Freestyle airframes around,
and it’s one of the most neutral for learning how to Torque Roll.
The author piloted this Edge 540 to win
several Freestyle contests.
more than a 12% up-elevator mix to the rudder. I’ve never had
one that required roll mix, but they often require a 1% downelevator
mix to the throttle at idle. This helps mix out the
tendency to pull out on downlines and helps prevent excessive
flare on landing approach. Once trimmed and mixed, the CAP is a
neutral aircraft with excellent roll and pitch characteristics,
making rolling turns look clean and even.
I think CAPs have an advantage compared with other designs
when it comes to snap characteristics. Snaps can be quick but
controllable. They start and stop rapidly, making it clear to the
judges that it’s a snap and not a roll. The pitch in a CAP’s snap
does not land you off-line, but it’s clear that that model has indeed
pitched.
Negative snaps can be a bit harder and may not exit cleanly. At
first, negative snaps may tend to over-rotate until you get some
practice. But for the most part, when flying in the upper classes in
which snaps are in nearly every figure, a well-practiced CAP pilot
will have an advantage.
Some of the smaller CAPs have had a reputation for being
snap-happy: snapping when you least expect it. And I have piloted
some that were a nightmare to fly. It’s unfortunate that this
perception has soured the airplane’s reputation across the board,
but I assure you that this is not the case with all brands and sizes
of CAP 232s. Any of the 35%-40% CAPs out there are fantastic,
with forgiving tendencies, and they don’t tend to snap
unexpectedly.
In 3-D I’ve had mixed experiences with the smaller (30% and
down to 72 inches in wingspan) CAPs, where some were stable
and forgiving and others could be nearly impossible to manage in
high-alpha (HA) flight. However, in regards to the larger models
the CAP is still among my favorites for 3-D. HA is stable and
controllable. It’s one of the most stable HA platforms available.
And pitch authority is as good as it gets, making for great
Waterfalls and quick stand-up Torque Rolls.
HA knife edge can be a bit harder than with some other
models, and the CAP is one of the most difficult with which to
manage a clean Torque Roll. It has a tendency to want to flatten
out to the belly and fly away. Rolling Harriers are clean and easy
to do, but if I were building a CAP today I’d probably go with
some oversized tapered ailerons as many of the Extras now have.
For whatever reason CAPs have dropped out of favor in the
last few years, and there aren’t many of the larger airplanes
available on the market today. I probably wouldn’t recommend
that you buy one of the smaller versions because of the
inconsistencies from brand to brand, but for my money a 35% or
40% CAP 232 is still at the top of the list when it comes to overall
performance. If you can find a clean, used one, it might be one of
the best values to boot.
Edge 540: I’ve owned several Edges ranging in size from 25%-
40% and have flown many of the sizes I haven’t owned. I won the
Northeast Regional IMAC (International Miniature Aerobatic
Club) title in my Sportsman year with a 36% Edge 540. Edges
have that close-to-the-thrustline design I discussed in the
preceding, but for some reason they are not as neutral as you
might expect.
With the Edge I’ve found that your trimming and mixing
numbers can lull you into a false expectation. Pitch and roll mixes
may have relatively low numbers when you mix them for pure
knife edge, 5%-8% positive pitch, and 2%-6% opposite roll. But
in use the Edge does not like pitch, roll, and yaw inputs to be
initiated together. I’ve found that once the pilot starts to mix
inputs during flight, his or her trim mixes do not hold true.
During a Rolling Circle where the pilot needs to impart roll,
pitch, and yaw together at varying intervals, the Edge will change
coupling relative to the amount of simultaneous inputs and stray
off course, causing the pilot to fight or chase the airplane.
Rolling Circles seem to be the biggest problem, but I’ve found
that many radiused maneuvers are more
difficult to keep clean, even, and online
with almost any brand or size of Edge
540. In my early years as a Sportsman
pilot those traits were not evident because
the required figures were not that
complex. However, for the higher classes
some maneuvers are much harder than
they would be with other airframes.
Edges have no bad habits when it
comes to snaps and can be clean with
basic maneuvers such as Lines,
Hammerheads, and Straight Rolls. The
biggest complaint that most pilots have
with the Edge is that it does not want to
spin. Trying to go into a spin maneuver
often results in an elevator with no break
or roll. The trick is to use the rudder
during the entry, but it’s still difficult to
score well with a 540.
As with most models, brands and sizes
of Edge airframes vary a great deal in
performance, but in general the Edge is
known for its reputation as an exceptional
3-D model. In spirit I might agree with
that assessment, but for me it is not the
ultimate 3-D airframe.
Most of the Edge airframes are
extremely stable in HA flight. Many Edge
designs are close to rock solid in HA and
others are similarly unstable. Torque Rolls
are usually neutral and almost as easy as it
gets. For me those two advantages are
where the Edge 3-D performance stops.
Pitch authority is lacking, and I found this
to be a great handicap in many 3-D
situations such as pop-ups, Waterfalls,
Parachutes, and 3-D Spins.
If you want to learn Harriers and
Torque Rolls, some models of the Edge
540 may be the best choice. But for all-out
3-D or for precision flight, my assessment
is that there are better choices out there. I
spent two seasons fighting an Edge in the
Unlimited class, and when I switched to
another design my performance improved
overnight.
That’s all the space I have for now, but in
the next column I’ll share my reflections
on the Extra 300 series$10,000
Joyce Garfinkel - FL
In memory of Dan GarfinkelWilliam T. Frantz - WA
Robert M. Gellart - IN
Felix J. Gora - OH
Michael Lee Gottfried - OH
David A. Jacob - FL
Nathan T. Lewis - WA
John P. Rheiner - TXBen Alexander - GA
William H. Asplund - CT
Dan Ausley - FL
Paul R. Bastek - MD
Russell C. Behr - AL
Lewis R. Berman - AZ
Jerome Bernstein - FL
A. R. Booth - IN
James Borre - IL
David E. Butters - PA
Michael J. Chaparro - FL
Robert M. Chesnalavage - TX
James Conroy - NY
Norman L. Crosby - CO
Wiley R. Davenport - MI
William E. Davis - CA
Alfred Delgado - PR
Denny L. Dock - MI
James S. Doty - IN
Richard D. Dragin - CA
Sidney Erickson - CA
Donald J. Evans - CA
John H. Falb - CA
Gregory S. Fanaza - CT
Joseph Foyst - IN
Dean Fuller - CT
Jeffrey E. Gagne - AZ
Donald G. Garofalow - NJ
Johnny W. Gay - FL
Bob Gieseke - TX
Gerald M. Gregorek - OH
Mark Guay - MA
Stefan Gutermuth - NJ
Robert I. Handler - NC
Tom Hartvigsen - TN
Steven G. Hayes - CA
Wallace H. Henderson - FL
Barry L. Henrickson - ND
Christopher Hickok - OR
Donald G. Hines - MI
Cody Horn - IN
Donald D. Howard Jr. - MI
Lloyd N. Jones - OK
Ronald A. Kampner - NY
David Kern - IN
Lew Kezeor - CA
Wan S. Kim - CA
John W. Knutsen - NY
Greg S. Lewis - CA
Gary L. Lindholm - TX
Daniel T. Linscott - MA
Lucky Jim Lucas IV - CA
Steven L. Madsen - IA
John S. Masters - MI
Mike Mcauley - CO
Alex Milionis - NJ
Robert Morris - NJ
Jerome Ohalloran - IL
Greg Otto - GA
Charles M. Patterson - GA
Robert Patukonis - NH
Alfred R. Prudhomme Jr. - MA
Roger F. Reid - NV
Charles G. Roberts - VA
James L. Russell - PA
Guy R. Scott - IN
Steven J. Shauver - IN
Donald R. Stackhouse - NV
Calvin Starr - GA
Clarence Stephens - OH
Mert Thayer - Il
Mir Verner - MN
Joseph Wagner - MD
James Weaver - IN
Kenneth B. Weaver - AZ
Bill Williams - IL
Larry L. Wringer - MI
F. R. Yoho - OH
Albion Smith Jr. - GA
Edition: Model Aviation - 2006/04
Page Numbers: 133,134,135
Mike’s impressions of a few popular SA models
April 2006 133
[[email protected]]
Radio Control Scale Aerobatics Mike Hurley
Despite its reputation as a snappy airplane, the CAP 232 can be one of the most stable
and precise aerobatic airframes available.
Brazil’s Fabio Trento pilots the author’s CAP 232 in the 2002 Tucson Aerobatic
Shootout. Fabio lost his CAP during practice and borrowed Mike’s to finish the contest.
I’M NOT SURE about the other specialinterest
columns in this magazine, but it
might be helpful to some readers to
remember that the information in the Scale
Aerobatics (SA) column is my opinion
based solely on my experiences. With that
disclaimer …
I get many questions from readers and
from pilots I meet while flying about what
airplanes I like and which ones to avoid, so
I thought I’d share some of those thoughts
with you. I hope you’ll understand that my
thoughts and experiences may not be the
same as yours. That’s perfectly okay.
Flight performance is a perception and
perceptions differ. This overview is meant
to give you a basic understanding of how
each design varies and help you make a
decision about your next airframe.
In the next two SA columns I’m going
to highlight four types of airplanes, giving
you my impressions of them and revealing
a bit about how I like to set them up. With
any given design there are basic
similarities and vast differences in flight
performance when comparing brands and
sizes. A 25% CAP will have some of the
same nuances of a different brand of 40%
CAP, but the overall experience may be
completely different. So although I may
like one brand or size of CAP, I may not
recommend another. Just because brand
“A” performs well (or poorly) does not
mean all CAPs will.
For this exercise I will be discussing
only models that have wingspans
exceeding 80 inches. I don’t have enough
experience with the smaller models to
make a judgment about their performance.
CAP 232: This model is much different
from most airplanes we fly in competition
because the flying surfaces are located
relatively far from the thrustline. Most SA
model designers today prefer airplanes that
have a more linear relationship in
thrustline and flying surfaces. With the
Yak-54, the engine, wing, and tail are
close to the centerline of the fuselage.
Despite the odd positions of
components, the CAP works for me! A
nicely tuned and trimmed 232 can be as
effective in competition as any other
design out there.
CAPs tend to have a bit more pitch
coupling than other SA models, but none
of the five CAPs I’ve owned has required
134 MODEL AVIATION
The Edge 540 has a reputation as one of the best 3-D and Freestyle airframes around,
and it’s one of the most neutral for learning how to Torque Roll.
The author piloted this Edge 540 to win
several Freestyle contests.
more than a 12% up-elevator mix to the rudder. I’ve never had
one that required roll mix, but they often require a 1% downelevator
mix to the throttle at idle. This helps mix out the
tendency to pull out on downlines and helps prevent excessive
flare on landing approach. Once trimmed and mixed, the CAP is a
neutral aircraft with excellent roll and pitch characteristics,
making rolling turns look clean and even.
I think CAPs have an advantage compared with other designs
when it comes to snap characteristics. Snaps can be quick but
controllable. They start and stop rapidly, making it clear to the
judges that it’s a snap and not a roll. The pitch in a CAP’s snap
does not land you off-line, but it’s clear that that model has indeed
pitched.
Negative snaps can be a bit harder and may not exit cleanly. At
first, negative snaps may tend to over-rotate until you get some
practice. But for the most part, when flying in the upper classes in
which snaps are in nearly every figure, a well-practiced CAP pilot
will have an advantage.
Some of the smaller CAPs have had a reputation for being
snap-happy: snapping when you least expect it. And I have piloted
some that were a nightmare to fly. It’s unfortunate that this
perception has soured the airplane’s reputation across the board,
but I assure you that this is not the case with all brands and sizes
of CAP 232s. Any of the 35%-40% CAPs out there are fantastic,
with forgiving tendencies, and they don’t tend to snap
unexpectedly.
In 3-D I’ve had mixed experiences with the smaller (30% and
down to 72 inches in wingspan) CAPs, where some were stable
and forgiving and others could be nearly impossible to manage in
high-alpha (HA) flight. However, in regards to the larger models
the CAP is still among my favorites for 3-D. HA is stable and
controllable. It’s one of the most stable HA platforms available.
And pitch authority is as good as it gets, making for great
Waterfalls and quick stand-up Torque Rolls.
HA knife edge can be a bit harder than with some other
models, and the CAP is one of the most difficult with which to
manage a clean Torque Roll. It has a tendency to want to flatten
out to the belly and fly away. Rolling Harriers are clean and easy
to do, but if I were building a CAP today I’d probably go with
some oversized tapered ailerons as many of the Extras now have.
For whatever reason CAPs have dropped out of favor in the
last few years, and there aren’t many of the larger airplanes
available on the market today. I probably wouldn’t recommend
that you buy one of the smaller versions because of the
inconsistencies from brand to brand, but for my money a 35% or
40% CAP 232 is still at the top of the list when it comes to overall
performance. If you can find a clean, used one, it might be one of
the best values to boot.
Edge 540: I’ve owned several Edges ranging in size from 25%-
40% and have flown many of the sizes I haven’t owned. I won the
Northeast Regional IMAC (International Miniature Aerobatic
Club) title in my Sportsman year with a 36% Edge 540. Edges
have that close-to-the-thrustline design I discussed in the
preceding, but for some reason they are not as neutral as you
might expect.
With the Edge I’ve found that your trimming and mixing
numbers can lull you into a false expectation. Pitch and roll mixes
may have relatively low numbers when you mix them for pure
knife edge, 5%-8% positive pitch, and 2%-6% opposite roll. But
in use the Edge does not like pitch, roll, and yaw inputs to be
initiated together. I’ve found that once the pilot starts to mix
inputs during flight, his or her trim mixes do not hold true.
During a Rolling Circle where the pilot needs to impart roll,
pitch, and yaw together at varying intervals, the Edge will change
coupling relative to the amount of simultaneous inputs and stray
off course, causing the pilot to fight or chase the airplane.
Rolling Circles seem to be the biggest problem, but I’ve found
that many radiused maneuvers are more
difficult to keep clean, even, and online
with almost any brand or size of Edge
540. In my early years as a Sportsman
pilot those traits were not evident because
the required figures were not that
complex. However, for the higher classes
some maneuvers are much harder than
they would be with other airframes.
Edges have no bad habits when it
comes to snaps and can be clean with
basic maneuvers such as Lines,
Hammerheads, and Straight Rolls. The
biggest complaint that most pilots have
with the Edge is that it does not want to
spin. Trying to go into a spin maneuver
often results in an elevator with no break
or roll. The trick is to use the rudder
during the entry, but it’s still difficult to
score well with a 540.
As with most models, brands and sizes
of Edge airframes vary a great deal in
performance, but in general the Edge is
known for its reputation as an exceptional
3-D model. In spirit I might agree with
that assessment, but for me it is not the
ultimate 3-D airframe.
Most of the Edge airframes are
extremely stable in HA flight. Many Edge
designs are close to rock solid in HA and
others are similarly unstable. Torque Rolls
are usually neutral and almost as easy as it
gets. For me those two advantages are
where the Edge 3-D performance stops.
Pitch authority is lacking, and I found this
to be a great handicap in many 3-D
situations such as pop-ups, Waterfalls,
Parachutes, and 3-D Spins.
If you want to learn Harriers and
Torque Rolls, some models of the Edge
540 may be the best choice. But for all-out
3-D or for precision flight, my assessment
is that there are better choices out there. I
spent two seasons fighting an Edge in the
Unlimited class, and when I switched to
another design my performance improved
overnight.
That’s all the space I have for now, but in
the next column I’ll share my reflections
on the Extra 300 series$10,000
Joyce Garfinkel - FL
In memory of Dan GarfinkelWilliam T. Frantz - WA
Robert M. Gellart - IN
Felix J. Gora - OH
Michael Lee Gottfried - OH
David A. Jacob - FL
Nathan T. Lewis - WA
John P. Rheiner - TXBen Alexander - GA
William H. Asplund - CT
Dan Ausley - FL
Paul R. Bastek - MD
Russell C. Behr - AL
Lewis R. Berman - AZ
Jerome Bernstein - FL
A. R. Booth - IN
James Borre - IL
David E. Butters - PA
Michael J. Chaparro - FL
Robert M. Chesnalavage - TX
James Conroy - NY
Norman L. Crosby - CO
Wiley R. Davenport - MI
William E. Davis - CA
Alfred Delgado - PR
Denny L. Dock - MI
James S. Doty - IN
Richard D. Dragin - CA
Sidney Erickson - CA
Donald J. Evans - CA
John H. Falb - CA
Gregory S. Fanaza - CT
Joseph Foyst - IN
Dean Fuller - CT
Jeffrey E. Gagne - AZ
Donald G. Garofalow - NJ
Johnny W. Gay - FL
Bob Gieseke - TX
Gerald M. Gregorek - OH
Mark Guay - MA
Stefan Gutermuth - NJ
Robert I. Handler - NC
Tom Hartvigsen - TN
Steven G. Hayes - CA
Wallace H. Henderson - FL
Barry L. Henrickson - ND
Christopher Hickok - OR
Donald G. Hines - MI
Cody Horn - IN
Donald D. Howard Jr. - MI
Lloyd N. Jones - OK
Ronald A. Kampner - NY
David Kern - IN
Lew Kezeor - CA
Wan S. Kim - CA
John W. Knutsen - NY
Greg S. Lewis - CA
Gary L. Lindholm - TX
Daniel T. Linscott - MA
Lucky Jim Lucas IV - CA
Steven L. Madsen - IA
John S. Masters - MI
Mike Mcauley - CO
Alex Milionis - NJ
Robert Morris - NJ
Jerome Ohalloran - IL
Greg Otto - GA
Charles M. Patterson - GA
Robert Patukonis - NH
Alfred R. Prudhomme Jr. - MA
Roger F. Reid - NV
Charles G. Roberts - VA
James L. Russell - PA
Guy R. Scott - IN
Steven J. Shauver - IN
Donald R. Stackhouse - NV
Calvin Starr - GA
Clarence Stephens - OH
Mert Thayer - Il
Mir Verner - MN
Joseph Wagner - MD
James Weaver - IN
Kenneth B. Weaver - AZ
Bill Williams - IL
Larry L. Wringer - MI
F. R. Yoho - OH
Albion Smith Jr. - GA