WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?

[Gerald Arana]

Ok, now that the study is out on "Vortex Generators" and the video of a full size ship shows that they help with "low speed" stalls, do you think they will help (keep) a "Ringmaster" from stalling in the sq's and hour glass?

Or do you have any "Scientific" proof to support your opinion?  

I'd hate to put my RM on the wall because I don't like the way it flies....

Jerry

PS: Flies OT just fine.

PPS: I'm thinking of putting Zigzag's on it. Where do I locate them?

[Dave_Trible]

Jerry I think a Ringmaster is just a Ringmaster and they weren't meant to do squares and hourglasses.....just sayin.  Not much but a Magician will fix it.

Dave

[Gerald Arana]

Hi Dave,

Yeah I know........probably shouldn't have built it. Had a short in the brain cells.....

But the problem is: Is it fixable? or at least to an acceptable level?

Jerry

[Dave_Trible]

Well without flaps not too fixable.  You can go a little faster and limit the elevator travel if it's too much and causing stall but that wing is small and thin.  It doesn't have much displacement or bouyancy to it.  It will run out of lift sooner than you are asking.  Turbulator strips might surprise you and help quite a bit.  I found with my experimenting on my airplane (disqualifying statement) that about 20% back from the leading edge produced some noted extra lift.  The zig zags were cut from aluminum foil duct tape about 3/16" wide,  cut with pinking shears.  With an oily engine exhaust you'll be cleaning carefully and replacing often but would be a fun experiment.....and the talk of the next OT stunt contest.  BTW. To find the best location for the turbs start at 20 then progressively move them back in 5% increments.  You may find some magic spot.  My number will be something different without flaps I'm sure.



Dave

[Randy Cuberly]

A Ringmaster can be built to do reasonable squares without stalling.   I know I've had a couple of them.
Just build it at 16 oz with an LA25.  No it isn't easy and it becomes a little fragile but it can be done.
The biggest draw back is the light weight and fragile airplane is difficult to compete with in OT without constant handling damage.
Personally I seriously doubt that any "thingees" on the wing is going to make much difference on that small thin wing.  Light weight and slow controls and a careful hand will get the job done, but of course it all begs the question...WHY?

Randy Cuberly

[Dan McEntee]

   I don't know about where to put the vortex generators, as I haven't had the time to sit and watch the videos in that thread. But you can help yourself a lot with proper balance and slow, limited elevator throws as has already been mentioned. The Ringmaster I am currently flying does a pretty good square corner, and have seen several others do them acceptably also. It will take the sum of the whole package: as light an airframe as possible, but mine is in the mid to upper 20 ounce range; light weight engine like one of the current .25s or a good Fox .35; proper air speed which is also dictated by line length; 3 inch belcrank and longer elevator horn. I forget where the balance point should be, but experiment with tail weight until you get a feel for what you want. And keep in mind, it won't be like a full blown stunter, but should be a satisfying square corner. Let us know what you figure out of the vortex generators.
   Good luck and have fun,
    Dan McEntee

[Paul Walker]

My experience is that they don't solve basic "flaws" with the build or design. They simply make maneuvers more "repeatable".

So I would say NO. Nothing to be gained on a Ringmaster.

[Ted Fancher]

I've watched David Fitz put up regular 500+ AMA patterns with a pretty much normal weight Ringmaster with either a Veco 19BB (my airplane) or his own with a BB tuned Max .19.  It must be flown quickly with constant speed which dictates high RPM and low pitch props which won't slow down appreciably in maneuvers.  The CG, as with most stunters, should be as aft as allows good stability and controllable pitch rates...most flapless ships will be happiest around 15% MAC and probably shouldn't go aft of 20% as you'll lose feedback in the controls and find it hard to stop corners reliably.  Plan on flying pretty quick lap times, somewhere in the mid four seconds or so.  It sounds fast but it's a tiny airplane and its not like trying to fly a Super Snorter .75 powered 750 square inch behemoth.  It's perfectly doable.

The important thing to remember, however, is to not try to pull out upright out of the inverted down intersection of your square vertical eights when the engine flames out like David did twice with my Ringmaster.  When the fast revving low pitch prop stops sucking the Ringmaster turns into your grandpa's Ringmaster and it wil NOT return to upright flight without post flight reconstruction.  David was a gentleman and fixed it both times.

Oh, and a last important thing that others have mentioned.  Reduced elevator travel and slow controls are the ticket to flying good patterns.  The stock, short plywood horn is a no, no.  Get one of those long nylon ones and plan on the furthest hole out and something less than that at the bellcrank end.  Use an adjustable spacing handle to control the sensitivity to suit the pilot.  Don't try to trim a stable but responsive airplane to suit your desired handle response by adding weight to the nose or tail.  Adjust the sensitivity with handle line spacing.  Adding nose weight is not the way to go unless the airplane is unstable in the glide.  Again, CG ~15%MAC should be right in the ball park for good AMA patterns if the other stuff is as suggested by others and above in this post.

Ted

P.S.  Don't expect to win the Walker Cup with the airplane but, also, don't be afraid to fly it anywhere.  You might not win but you'll impress people who say a Ringmaster can't fly decent tricks.

Ted

[Sean McEntee]

As Randy, Ted and a few others have said, it CAN be a capable airplane.

I built one of the early RSM kits.  Built it on my bed back when I was still living in the barracks    It finished out at 27 oz ready to fly.  It has an L&J Fox 35 on it and an RSM 10x6 prop, and flies on unusually long lines at 67'.  However, it worked.  In its heyday, about 2000 flights ago, it turned corners very well, could achieve 500+ point scores and even scored a few classic wins with it.  Its gained considerable weight from oil soakage so it cant do it anymore

The RSM kit comes with a plywood horn that is identical to the origional, but is longer.  Bottom hole on it is perfect.

[RC Storick]

Here is what engineer at NASA said to me in a phone conversation after watching Chris Rud's video. "At the speed we fly its kind of like a sugar pill, if it makes you feel good do it".

[Jim Thomerson]

I have judged Ringmasters flown by expert fliers, and have seen 500 point plus flights.  I am of the opinion that the person holding the handle is more important in the equation that the airplane on the end of the lines.  That is within limits, of course, but, like it or not, the Ringmaster is within those limits.

[Tim Wescott]

I have judged Ringmasters flown by expert fliers, and have seen 500 point plus flights.  I am of the opinion that the person holding the handle is more important in the equation that the airplane on the end of the lines.  That is within limits, of course, but, like it or not, the Ringmaster is within those limits.

I've flown a Ringmaster to 475 points.  When you fly a regular CLPA plane you are, for the most part, concentrating on flying to the limits of your ability.  When you're flying a Ringmaster, you also need to concentrate on flying to the limits of the airplane's ability -- if you don't, you get immediately punished for it.

[Bob Reeves]

I've flown a Ringmaster to 475 points.  When you fly a regular CLPA plane you are, for the most part, concentrating on flying to the limits of your ability.  When you're flying a Ringmaster, you also need to concentrate on flying to the limits of the airplane's ability -- if you don't, you get immediately punished for it.

Very well said....

[Randy Powell]

Gee, my Ringmaster flies 500+ point patterns.   

[Mark Scarborough]

Gee, my Ringmaster flies 500+ point patterns.   

yeah,, THAT ringmaster is not quite box stock as I recall Randy

and I am surprised you remember what scores you got with it,, that was like what,, a decade ago? LOL

[john e. holliday]

Oh Mark, have you flown the plane yet that was last seen hidden under your work bench?   

O f course I should talk as I haven't been out with a plane for over three weeks.

[John Cralley]

Follow Ted's advice!! The CGs on my Ringmasters are from 1.5 to 1.75 inches back from the leading edge. Long control horn and limited throw are essential. I am using an RC threaded horn which gives you continuous adjustment.

At 81 my squares look like loops!!    Oh well. 

[Joe Yau]

do you think they will help (keep) a "Ringmaster" from stalling in the sq's and hour glass?

Or do you have any "Scientific" proof to support your opinion?  

Wouldn't hurt to try it.. the ones from Howard are removable.  It certainly helped my Pathfinder II, as it used to abruptly stalls during the landing glide.. it would drop then bounce if I don't land quickly.  with the VGs I could fly it all the way down and land smoothly without stalling.  and it also improved other area as well like consistency etc.

[Gerald Arana]

Randy;

The answer to your question "Why?" is "Because".
 

Jerry

PS: 16 oz's?? What the 'L are you using? Unobtainium? Heilum? I can't handle micro film jobs; to clumsy.

[Randy Cuberly]

Randy;

The answer to your question "Why?" is "Because".
 

Jerry

PS: 16 oz's?? What the 'L are you using? Unobtainium? Heilum? I can't handle micro film jobs; to clumsy.

Well, I said they get a little FRAGILE! 

I've actually seen two (not built by me) that weighed under 14 oz with OS 15 FP's for power.
The key to 16 oz is built up fuse.  Hollow LE and TE and very light wood.

Not at all sure it's worth it though!  They're still next to impossible to land with the stock gear placement without bouncing, unless of course you're David or Ted!

Randy Cuberly

[Randy Ryan]

My only experience with them is based on a very, very short landing by a restored , I think, L5 Bird Dog. It made a landing at the RC strip and touched down at the 3/4 mark, went to the end of the runway before it stopped. This with a pilot and passenger. The turbulators on that wing were about 1/3 of the distance from the LE to the high point of the airfoil . I assume it is a modified Clark Y on the Piper.
The landing speed was about as slow as we fly. FWIW. 

Ty, not meaning to be overly critical, but the L-5 is the Stinson Bird Dog. The L-4 is the Piper Grasshopper. I don't know what airfoil the L-5 uses.

[Tim Wescott]

Not at all sure it's worth it though!  They're still next to impossible to land with the stock gear placement without bouncing, unless of course you're David or Ted!

Locally, John Thompson can reliably land a Ringmaster smoothly on pavement.  You need to bring it in ultra-smooth, and fast enough so that at the point of contact with the ground it's still at flying speed.  Then keep the tail up until it's going too slow to pop back into the air.

I can pull it off about one time in three.