Author Topic: Plane Ideas (Read 72161 times)

david smith · « **on:** January 15, 2015, 06:57:14 PM »

I am curious what everyone thinks about this. What is/or could be the best plane for Class 1 or 2 that isn't a MO-1?

eric david conley · « **Reply #1 on:** January 15, 2015, 08:54:55 PM »

Well this should be interesting. You eliminated the best plane(easy to build, easy to fly, goes real fast(little frontal area), goes real slow, and looks like crap) and any others I have ever thought of cannot compete with the MO-1. Dick Perry did a write up on the clipped wing Seafire that the Royal Navy used in the Pacific in WW-2 and found that with a 44 inch wing span gave well over 300 square inches of area but the frontal area is larger (a "little" more streamlined than the MO-1). The plane is much more complicated to build than the MO-1 and would not compete well with a MO-1. The only blue plane (I think) would be the Corsair and the engine cowl is not in the least streamlined although the frontal area is small for a radial engine plane. So maybe someone can think of something but I doubt it will be as competitive (damn the MO-1). Eric

Darrel · « **Reply #2 on:** January 15, 2015, 10:45:30 PM »

Not better than the MO-1, but worthy subjects I think.

Westland Wyvern TF Mk 1
Nakajima B6N Tenzan / JILL
Sud-Ouest SO 8000 Naval

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #3 on:** January 16, 2015, 05:37:03 AM »

David, what is your definition of best? What are your goals for this airplane? If the MO-1 is the best ever what are you looking for anyhow. Good question.
Thanks
Wayne

Bob Heywood · « **Reply #4 on:** January 16, 2015, 07:22:21 AM »

The Skyraider.

For CL I or CL II the key is to build strong but light. Acceleration is important and gross weight directly relates to stalling speed. The Skyraider ends up with one of the smaller frontal areas of the recip era designs which should also help. It can be built with mostly a box type fuselage so it really isn't all that involved.

Cal Smith's 1950 winner is a bit on the robust side but a 44" span version of Howard Mottin's design has promise.

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #5 on:** January 16, 2015, 08:18:55 AM »

One reason the MO-1 is good is the high wing - this feature causes the nose to pitch up when the throttle is goosed, which simultaneosly slows the descent and the forward speed. The Fairey Barracuda is very similar to the MO-1 in layout and since it is not a radial engine, it's frontal area is also similar. It has a very high stab/elevator which would make control linkage a bit of a puzzle and the external flaps would be a PITA, even if not operable. One other "Plus"

is that it's nearly as ugly as an MO-1 though it wouldn't be as easy to build. One of the very biggest reasons I always end up building another MO-1 is that it can be built so quickly and easily. The fuse is about like a wide profile. My last pair had external controls and pushrods, just like the profiles.

The Guardian has a wing that is mounted fairly high and is generally laid out in a favorable manner. Frontal areas on any radial engine design will be similar. The Fairey Spearfish is very similar to the Guardian.

john vlna · « **Reply #6 on:** January 16, 2015, 11:26:27 AM »

Dave
You might want to look at the Kokusai Ki-76 . I have built it as a profile, in fact it scored the highest I have ever done at the NATS with a 3rd place once. I have a draft of a Class I / II plan you could work with if you want it. It is to big to post but I can email a DXF file. It was a Japanese ARMY carrier plane. I am thinking of building one for Class I electric.

david smith · « **Reply #7 on:** January 16, 2015, 07:31:31 PM »

Thanks for the suggestions. I have looked at the Barracuda before and I kind of like it I might end up going that route. That Sud-Ouest SO 8000 Naval looks a lot like a Sea Vampire. I actually already have a foam ducted fan RC Vampire that I got with the intentions of making an electric carrier plane but just haven't got around to it yet. In all honesty I will probably end up just building a MO-1 for now just because of how easy it is.

I have a Seafire for Class one now that if it was about a pound lighter it might be pretty good.

I have been playing with some composite stuff because we have a carbon shop at work and I have started a Gerber MO-1 for nostalgia Class 1 that the fuse and wing are made out of carbon. That is the route I want to go with an AMA Class 1 I just need to decide on what I want that will be competitive.

Just an FYI I appreciate the suggestions but I just don't think I can bring myself to build a Japanese plane thanks though

JoeJust · « **Reply #8 on:** January 17, 2015, 11:11:37 AM »

.

I have been playing with some composite stuff because we have a carbon shop at work and I have started a Gerber MO-1 for nostalgia Class 1 that the fuse and wing are made out of carbon.

[/quote]
I am not trying here to start an argument, but I wonder if a carbon fiber wing and or fuse is following he intent of Nostalgia Carrier. Regular Profile, Class 1 and 2 seem to be the place for such endeavors. Please correct me if you guys feel I am wrong.
Joe

eric david conley · « **Reply #9 on:** January 17, 2015, 12:06:25 PM »

David, Joe,

You can go up on the Navy Carrier Society web page NCS. Scroll down to rules, then hit the nostalgia rules and read them. AS long as you had the plans to prove all of your out lines are correct I don't see why you couldn't use carbon. The rules are pretty open to using alternate materials as long as the planes are made from original plans.?? President Dick Perry's web address is printed in the NCS news letter so you could ask him directly. Eric navycarriersociety.org

JoeJust · « **Reply #10 on:** January 17, 2015, 01:30:42 PM »

Then why is there bonus points available for using period type engines?
Joe

john vlna · « **Reply #11 on:** January 17, 2015, 02:02:14 PM »

Joe

They aren't period engines, just non-schurnel ported

John

skyshark58 · « **Reply #12 on:** January 21, 2015, 12:45:46 AM »

I think the Barracuda would make a great model. The Youngman flaps when retracted don't hang down much and I wouldn't even put them on. You don't see that big old radiator hanging down under the MO-1 engine do you ?
As far as the T-tail you could run a reinforced bent push rod to the elevators like Ron Duly did on his Seamew.

Mike Potter

john vlna · « **Reply #13 on:** January 21, 2015, 03:34:03 PM »

The early prototype had a more conventional stab. It would be easier to build and I think might fly better Than the T stab

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #14 on:** January 21, 2015, 04:43:12 PM »

I vaguely remember Dave Wallick campaigning a standard type tail Barracuda in the late sixties. Nicely finished and very quick airplane.
Thanks
Wayne

skyshark58 · « **Reply #15 on:** January 21, 2015, 08:59:42 PM »

You may be right about the tail but good luck finding three view drawings of the prototype. All I have ever seen is drawings of the T tail version. I have seen a photo of the prototype but that is all. Mike

john vlna · « **Reply #16 on:** January 22, 2015, 08:54:24 AM »

Yes, there does not seem to be a drawing of the Barracuda prototype, but it is throughly documented in photos and many pubs which would suffice for documentation.

John

Douglas Ames · « **Reply #17 on:** January 27, 2015, 04:08:30 PM »

Quote from: skyshark58 on January 21, 2015, 12:45:46 AM

I think the Barracuda would make a great model. The Youngman flaps when retracted don't hang down much and I wouldn't even put them on. You don't see that big old radiator hanging down under the MO-1 engine do you ?
As far as the T-tail you could run a reinforced bent push rod to the elevators like Ron Duly did on his Seamew.

Mike Potter

I agree. Neat airplane, nice planform.

eric david conley · « **Reply #18 on:** January 27, 2015, 08:55:27 PM »

David, this is a picture of the low tail Barracuda printed from the English magazine "Aeroplane" dated May, 2009. It looks like they moved the original stabilizer and elevators up to the top of the rudder and added a couple of struts to steady it. I'll send the 3 view although it shows the high stabilizer model. If you put the picture with the 3 view that should be enough documentation for carrier scale. Eric

eric david conley · « **Reply #19 on:** January 27, 2015, 09:02:55 PM »

David, the 3 view.

skyshark58 · « **Reply #20 on:** January 28, 2015, 01:54:03 AM »

8.1.1. Scale three-view drawings of the full-scale aircraft and proof that the aircraft meets the above requirements must be submitted to be eligible for scale bonus points. (See Proof of Scale rules in the Unified Scale Judging section for acceptable sources of plans and documentation.

Scale three-view drawings must be submitted to be eligible for scale bonus points !

Randy James · « **Reply #21 on:** January 28, 2015, 08:14:59 AM »

I went searching and found this video of the Barracuda in action. As a bonus there's a nice control line scale model at the end of the video of what looks like a MkII.

eric david conley · « **Reply #22 on:** January 28, 2015, 11:27:38 AM »

Your absolutely right Mike. Another one of life's dirty little tricks. With the MO-1 we have a 3-view and all kinds of pictures and still don't build it to scale and get to fly it in carrier. What would happen if we left off the cabin and radiator on the carrier version of the P-51? I'm sure that there is a 3-view of the prototype Barracuda P1767 somewhere we just haven't found it yet. The prototype would be the ideal plane because the elevator is down in the slip stream where it would give more authority in the hang and wouldn't be breaking off on the cartwheels. I'll try e-mailing Matthew Willis at the Airoplane magazine and see if he can come up with a 3-view of the prototype. Eric

Peter Mazur · « **Reply #23 on:** January 28, 2015, 05:40:24 PM »

C. T. (Tommy) Schaefer flew a low-tail Barracuda in the '70s with a full wave tuned pipe in Class 2. It flew pretty well, if I recall, at least until they made the pipe illegal. Perhaps Tommy still has the 3-views around somewhere and might be persuaded to post them.
Pete

john vlna · « **Reply #24 on:** January 28, 2015, 06:32:48 PM »

Profile pub No. 240 shows the prototype
see attached

"Fairey Barracuda" by David Brown, Aircraft Profile No.240, Profile Publications Ltd.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #25 on:** January 29, 2015, 12:53:07 PM »

That should be enough proof to lower the stab/elevator location.

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #26 on:** January 29, 2015, 01:30:33 PM »

Actually, we had enough proof when we covered this the first time (three years ago):

http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php/topic,25097.0.html

There were two posts with scale drawings showing all 3 views. One of them (also from John Vlna) had all the side views, including the 'low tail' version and a top view, but no front view. The other, by Tom Wilk, had all 3 views, but no side view of the prototype.

There is no requirement that only one 3-view be presented - just that enough be shown to prove the scale fidelity of the model.

In any case, John's latest Profile publication wraps it up nicely.

Now, it only remains for someone to actually BUILD ONE - please post pic's here if you do.

john vlna · « **Reply #27 on:** January 29, 2015, 06:12:33 PM »

Mike

Thanks for the reminder. I even forgot I had some of that stuff. I thought I did but couldn't find it. Now I know it is on some disc somewhere.

John

Howard Olson · « **Reply #28 on:** February 01, 2015, 01:31:17 PM »

This whole post makes me sad. A few years ago I designed and built a class 1 prototype Barracuda. 42 inch span with a Jett Q-500 .40 up front. The plane was trashed while moving before it even got painted. The plans were all CAD but lost, along with a bunch of other stuff I designed, including my son's record holding .21 proto speed model drawings when the ZIP disk they were on crashed. I contacted a data recovery company, but they wanted a thousand bucks to attempt retrieving my plans etc. with no guarantees. Pretty much gave up at that point. What a mess.

john vlna · « **Reply #29 on:** February 02, 2015, 08:46:41 AM »

Howard

The jpg of the barracuda posted here http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php/topic,25097.0.html is your scale design I believe. Unfortunately I never had a copy of your cad.

The profile version is from Mike Shull I think.
John

Randy Snow · « **Reply #30 on:** March 31, 2015, 09:56:53 AM »

Sea Wolf

john vlna · « **Reply #31 on:** March 31, 2015, 10:00:52 AM »

Love the Sea Wolf
I have built a profile and I believe so has David. A Class I/II would be cool.