Hobbico’s NexSTAR was the first, and we think still the only, complete RC Training System available. The NexSTAR training system includes the RTF aircraft complete with engine and radio installed plus an onboard “autopilot” called the AFS System (returns the aircraft to stable, level flight but lacks directional control and so is not a true autopilot), Real Flight NexSTAR-only flight simulator and an excellent training video. Sport Aviator reviewed this training system when it was first released and the article remains available, (as do all Sport Aviator articles) in Sport Aviator’s “On The Flight Line” Section. If you have not read the first article, you might want to read it before reading this follow-up story. Just click here: Hobbico’s NexSTAR Select.

The NexSTAR airframe itself has several exclusive features. First, it sported one very good engine, the O.S. Max 46 FXi. This ball-bearing equipped, “ABC-style” premium engine is almost identical to O.S.’s new .46 AX. The only difference is a minor change, possibly in the timing, to make the engine start even more easily than does the quick starting .46 AX.

The NexSTAR also features drooped leading edges on the out board wing sections (photo 1). In the original article, we proposed that these drooped tips were utilized to maintain aileron control at very low airspeeds. We will see how that guess worked out. The NexSTAR also has slotted flaps or speed brakes, like the Dauntless Dive Bomber of WW II (photo 2). These flaps, we suggested, help to control airspeed rather than provide extra lift. Another theory that will need checking.

  
Photo 1      Photo 2

So we packed the NexSTAR off to the field with a screwdriver to remove the flaps and a knife to cut away the clear tape that holds the drooped leading edges in place. We also installed the Eagle Tree Flight Data Recorder to try to get a better understanding of the effects either of these airframe devices might have.

The planned tests included flying the NexSTAR with the flaps removed but with the drooped leading edges in place. That flight was followed by removing the drooped leading edges as well, resulting in a “clean” airframe. The final test flights had just the flaps installed. Since we already had extensively flown the NexSTAR with both devices installed, we will use that data as the base comparison.

We obtained some interesting results. But also, you should know that the data was not all obtained on the same day and in the same place. The flight data recorder was only able to record the first two test flights before running out of memory. The third flight’s data was incomplete and had to be repeated very early the next morning just before a rain storm. We also repeated the flights in another location 2 days later. This second location had an elevation about 400 ft. higher than the first. For these reasons, we feel that the data obtained is only about 90% accurate.

In addition, the original data was obtained months ago. But the weather conditions then were similar to now; late November with temperatures in the high 40’s. However, the humidity level then was much lower. I think the data is valid, even with the error factor, as we averaged everything out as much as possible.

A first look at the chart is fairly puzzling. Equipped only with the droop leading edges, the NexSTAR has a lower rate of climb than it does with flaps only, but glides nearly 40% further. Huh? I think if we add the subjective pilot data to these results, things will begin to make a little more sense. We hope.