stunthanger.com
News:
 
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. April 22, 2017, 10:54:50 PM


Login with username, password and session length



Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Windy's MIG  (Read 2538 times)
Scott Richlen
AMA Member
Trade Count: (0)
Captain
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 789


« on: January 09, 2017, 06:03:28 PM »

In the topic on the Brodak Hurricane John Tate posted a picture of his which happened to look quite striking in white with red stars.  He explained it as follows...
Quote
Scott,
I had a book on the Hurricane. During WWII the Brits were delivering some Hurricanes to Russia. An all white airplane with reds stars was simple to do.

Which got me to thinking about Windy's MIG which was very striking in red with white-outlined stars.  Anyone ever think about redesigning it to current "standards"?  I suppose it would be a bit smaller, maybe some moments changed along with airfoils, flap areas, and tail volume.  But still - nice to have something a bit diffferent!  No?


* Mig Sweeper 1.jpg (566.34 KB, 1800x2448 - viewed 257 times.)
Logged


Randy Cuberly
2016 supporter
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Age: 76
Location: Tucson AZ
Posts: 2834



« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2017, 07:06:31 PM »

You need a Balsa farm to build it!

However it might be very interesting to build a smaller one.  Maybe not quite as impressive!

Randy Cuberly
Logged

Randy Cuberly
Tucson, AZ
Scott Richlen
AMA Member
Trade Count: (0)
Captain
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 789


« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2017, 07:11:26 AM »

There is a bit of "same-old, same-old" when I look at a lot of what's currently being built.  Of course, I am not without blame as the first thing I do is overlay the plans for whatever I am building with the plans of the StarGazer and compare moments and areas.  Then the next step is Kinkos/FedEx and shoot it down to LA-46 size.

I'm not sure a MIG/StarGazer (MIG-Gazer?) would be that impressive from the originality perspective.  But still, deep red with white outlined stars?  Hmmmm...

I think that it is time to revamp the PA scoring to include 80 beauty points, 60 of which are for originality.  That'd put the zing back into your step!
Logged
John Lindberg
Trade Count: (0)
Commander
****
Offline Offline

Age: 68
Location: Albequerque, New Mexico
Posts: 137


« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2017, 07:33:45 AM »

Just build a Thunder Gazer!  Hoff Roll
Logged
Scott Richlen
AMA Member
Trade Count: (0)
Captain
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 789


« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2017, 07:36:37 AM »

Not interested in the Thunder Gazer.  A guy I know has one and they build extremely heavy.
Logged
Brett Buck
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
******
Online Online

Age: 240
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 7294


« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2017, 11:58:12 AM »

Not interested in the Thunder Gazer.  A guy I know has one and they build extremely heavy.

   A guy I know has two of them, and they aren't inordinately heavy. Depending on your definition, of course. It won the WC at 67 ounces, the current model (which has at least two NATs) is about 64 ounces. I flew the 4-5th flight on the WC model and it had no issues with weight at 67 ounces.

  Not that I am discouraging anyone from building the MIG, but the full-up model is likely to be well above 80 ounces, maybe a lot more if you are not a masters-level builder like Windy. And it needs to weigh that much to fly correctly, what with the even more disproportionate flap area.

     Brett
Logged
Eric Viglione
2016 supporter
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001


« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2017, 03:21:56 PM »

I am probably going to step in it and regret this... but I have a question for Brett. I have built and flown Patternmasters, flown other peoples Strega etc. and watched people fly many of the variations.

Saying that, I totally get what you are saying about modern designs, and power train's ... but... there is more than how the plane handles the power that people put value on here. I find there is a totally different presentation, and that people have strong feelings about the difference between them.

When the PM variant northeast designs with the giant flaps hit the corners, you get the appearance of what I call the stop/pivot/resume flight type turn, I assume because the flaps are like the bugs bunny cartoon joke about "air brakes". I know this plays havoc with the power train and speed loss between legs on squares, etc, but it just looks so darn pretty when everything is working right.

The modern pipe and epower planes with thinner airfoils and constant speed tend to snake through the corners, which is probably just dandy for a mono-speed or very small variation type power train. In reality, the modern plane might be making a sharper measured corner but the stop turn is a great illusion of a sharper corner to some eyes.

In your opinion, is there a way to get the best of both worlds, using modern pipe power, without the negatives as you see them in older big flap designs? Or... am I just all wet? (distinct possibility)

Side note: and, if we are going for all the cake and eating it too... can it be done without excessive handle loading, because I've found I really am leaning towards less and less affinity for forcing planes through patterns. I currently fly with almost no handle overhang, fairly aft CG, and perhaps more elevator than flap, or just 1 to 1, but never more flap than elevator, since I have found I can build reasonable light.
Eric
Logged

76070
Scott Richlen
AMA Member
Trade Count: (0)
Captain
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 789


« Reply #7 on: January 10, 2017, 03:44:13 PM »

Quote
Not interested in the Thunder Gazer.  A guy I know has one and they build extremely heavy.

I knew that I'd get in trouble on that one. Evil  The correct translation is: "A guy I know has one and (he) buil(t) (it) extremely heavy."

Actually, I have the plans of the Thunder Gazer and always get them out for comparison purposes when I build something new.

So, Brett, if you were to redesign the MIG, what would you do to actually keep it MIG-like, fly well, and not become a clone of the Thunder Gazer?
Logged
Mark Scarborough
2015
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Online Online

Age: 57
Location: Pullman Washington
Posts: 5902


« Reply #8 on: January 10, 2017, 05:15:36 PM »

I am probably going to step in it and regret this... but I have a question for Brett. I have built and flown Patternmasters, flown other peoples Strega etc. and watched people fly many of the variations.

Saying that, I totally get what you are saying about modern designs, and power train's ... but... there is more than how the plane handles the power that people put value on here. I find there is a totally different presentation, and that people have strong feelings about the difference between them.

When the PM variant northeast designs with the giant flaps hit the corners, you get the appearance of what I call the stop/pivot/resume flight type turn, I assume because the flaps are like the bugs bunny cartoon joke about "air brakes". I know this plays havoc with the power train and speed loss between legs on squares, etc, but it just looks so darn pretty when everything is working right.

The modern pipe and epower planes with thinner airfoils and constant speed tend to snake through the corners, which is probably just dandy for a mono-speed or very small variation type power train. In reality, the modern plane might be making a sharper measured corner but the stop turn is a great illusion of a sharper corner to some eyes.

In your opinion, is there a way to get the best of both worlds, using modern pipe power, without the negatives as you see them in older big flap designs? Or... am I just all wet? (distinct possibility)

Side note: and, if we are going for all the cake and eating it too... can it be done without excessive handle loading, because I've found I really am leaning towards less and less affinity for forcing planes through patterns. I currently fly with almost no handle overhang, fairly aft CG, and perhaps more elevator than flap, or just 1 to 1, but never more flap than elevator, since I have found I can build reasonable light.
Eric

My two cents worth on this topic if I may,,

its not what is "pretty " but what SCORES that matters in the long run... from what I have seen the contemporary style of corner seems to be outscoring what you a referencing, so for me, I want that number on the board to be as high as I can get it,,
Logged

For years the rat race had me going around in circles, Now I do it for fun!
EXILED IN PULLMAN WA
AMA 842137
FLOYD CARTER
2017
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Online Online

Age: 83
Location: 87211 Louvring Ln. Eugene, OR 97402 5413384255
Posts: 2919



WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 10, 2017, 05:33:33 PM »

The THUNDERGAZER design seems to be evolving as the standard stunter.  Much like the Nobler, from which thousands of variants still emerge.

My own T'Gazer proved difficult to get into trim, for unknown reasons.  Before I could complete trimming, it shed its outboard wing.  Although built as one-piece (not take-apart), construction was conventional.  So I don't know why it failed.  That reinforced my practice of "own design"  and these have never failed to stay together.

Floyd
Logged

AMA #796  SAM #188  LSF #020
Trostle
AMA Member
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2075


« Reply #10 on: January 10, 2017, 06:15:11 PM »


(Clip)

I think that it is time to revamp the PA scoring to include 80 beauty points, 60 of which are for originality.  That'd put the zing back into your step!

I am going to join the hijacking of this thread.

So, Scott, how would you define originality for the rulebook?  I think any definition that could be composed would still fall short of what should deserve maximum "originality" points.  To me, the only person/plane that should deserve "originality" points would be something along the lines of the first to appear with a biplane pusher canard.  Reducing the size of an existing design in my opinion is not "original".  Changing the wing tips and/or tail of a Nobler in my opinion is not "original".  Appearing with a so called "original" design but retains the typical fuselage/wing/tail configuration of most designs for the past 60 years only with small changes in outline in my opinion is not "original".  There used to be "original" points given as part of the appearance points.  One of the reasons for its elimination was "originality" could not be defined in clear and understandable terms.

(As a famous column writer once wrote years ago in one of the model magazine, if all of the stunt ships were painted gray, it would be difficult to tell any difference between them.  He was primarily a team race guy and got seriously criticized for that but there is an element of truth there.) 

Another reason for eliminating originality points was the goal to reduce the importance of appearance points in the total score.  So the categories for the previous 40 appearance points - Originality (difficult to define), realism (difficult to define), workmanship, and finish (where the line between where workmanship and finish was also difficult to delineate) were eliminated and just 20 points remained for "Appearance".

It will be interesting to see how you would define "originality" as a part of appearance points.

Keith

Logged
Matt Spencer
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
******
Offline Offline

Location: Elsewhere .
Posts: 2271



« Reply #11 on: January 10, 2017, 07:10:26 PM »

Parently its a " L J Paternmaster - Mig "

Pitchers of The ' El Jay ' ( were told ) .
I puttim hereas they illustrate Marvelously The LARGE CHORD FLAPS , weird airfoil , and other Cr#p.



Curtosey Lewis Swindell .



From a more artistic hangle.
Logged
Matt Spencer
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
******
Offline Offline

Location: Elsewhere .
Posts: 2271



« Reply #12 on: January 10, 2017, 07:22:23 PM »

Put this here, Scott . as its not totally unrelated .



Spans 68 1/2 , A/R is over 8 1/2 . If you chopped the L J flap to 1/2 width , maybe it'd be about the same .
Had a few hystericly comments about it ' presents well / looks good in the air ' Waiting till ive 2 pot cleared it
for further flights . About 10 , FSR 40 Magnum & 45 , OS ditto S , ST 46 and the FP40s gone in , retaining the 25 gramme Tailweight .

Now You Know . 12 x 4 . 65 Oz . 70 ft on .018. No worries , Bar Pre ,46 injun runs , Dunno if low chord flaps present less drag ,
Id assume the T.E. deflection/ turn to be comparable . Winds not as much a issue as Id Presumed , if the fan keeps on turning .

gives you an idea , size regards power .

The High A/R advantage is the less drag at High A.o.A. , so dunno if the ' stop go " APPEARANCE " of the L J in turns is Just that -
Appears to , but in fact . . .
Think you may need to study some video on that there, If anyone can tell us where to Find It ?


Dunno if theres two pictures here , unless im logged in . ?  Huh
« Last Edit: January 10, 2017, 10:35:52 PM by Matt Spencer » Logged
Scott Richlen
AMA Member
Trade Count: (0)
Captain
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 789


« Reply #13 on: January 10, 2017, 07:38:20 PM »

Dang Keith!  Define originality in the stunt beauty-point sense?  That's a hard one!  Note that by venturing your own opinion of what would not be original to you somewhat qualifies your question by limiting what my answer could be.  I'll have to think about this.

My first instinct in discussing originality would be to say something to the effect that it shouldn't look like everyone else's.  But your question then would probably be about how you quantify the extent of difference - as in: can the paint job be considered "original" (or to what extent might the originality score be based on the paint job?) and how would you score it versus the shape of the tail?

By saying that the plane has to be a completely different configuration than has been seen before carries "originality" way past what I would be looking for.  If you go that pathway, then maybe I.C. and electric power would preclude a person from full originality points since everyone uses one or the other.  Much like art, I think that originality is in the eye of the beholder (or judge).  By recognizing what is today's norm (e.g., the StarGazer or the Impact) and awarding points on a basis of distance of unique difference from the norm, a somewhat subjective point application might be made.

To what extent is art embodied in our stunt ships?  It seems that the issue of art is that it is subjectively appreciated and, therefore, difficult to assign a score to.  However, in the art world, art is financially "scored" all of the time.  And even then some will disagree as to its value.  But value is assigned.  So, maybe the problem is that we expect to see scores assigned for originality that meet our own particular criteria.  What if we simply set out a scoring criteria for originality based on a philosophy of "if I've seen it before, it gets a low score; but if it is something I haven't seen before, it gets a high score?" (of course this assumes that the judge is very knowledgeable regarding current stunt-ships.)

The key thing is that I'm not expecting, nor demanding, a totally objective score basis (just as in the valuation of art) for originality.

Okay, still thinking...there's more.    
Logged
Matt Spencer
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
******
Offline Offline

Location: Elsewhere .
Posts: 2271



« Reply #14 on: January 10, 2017, 10:13:41 PM »

ORIGINAL !?



You Know how they get , in the city . When works finished for the week . Grin

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

talking of Originality , you  ( as in Not Me ) could do a Spruce Goose or B 36 dead easy  Layingdown
with all these electric gizzmos and motors these days . But Would That Be Original ?  Hugh

Depends on the parameters I Guess . some think only a ' Modified nobler ' Configuration
is Acceptable . or they Hate It . apparently PJ got a fair bit of Flak with his Lancaster .



Kinda Appropriate , Perhaps.  Layingdown Layingdown Layingdown

One Could stick as many ' motors ' in your patternmaster / SV II / Strega as you liked , within reason. But IS IT ORIGINAL ??  Undecided



Actually , some things , with a bit of preperation , in constructing a bit of ' tooling ' would go together pretty quick , thereafter .
But who else'd Want One .  Undecided Head bang Stir the pot Hoff
« Last Edit: January 10, 2017, 10:38:34 PM by Matt Spencer » Logged
Brett Buck
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
******
Online Online

Age: 240
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 7294


« Reply #15 on: January 10, 2017, 10:16:53 PM »

I am probably going to step in it and regret this... but I have a question for Brett. I have built and flown Patternmasters, flown other peoples Strega etc. and watched people fly many of the variations.

Saying that, I totally get what you are saying about modern designs, and power train's ... but... there is more than how the plane handles the power that people put value on here. I find there is a totally different presentation, and that people have strong feelings about the difference between them.

When the PM variant northeast designs with the giant flaps hit the corners, you get the appearance of what I call the stop/pivot/resume flight type turn, I assume because the flaps are like the bugs bunny cartoon joke about "air brakes". I know this plays havoc with the power train and speed loss between legs on squares, etc, but it just looks so darn pretty when everything is working right.

The modern pipe and epower planes with thinner airfoils and constant speed tend to snake through the corners, which is probably just dandy for a mono-speed or very small variation type power train. In reality, the modern plane might be making a sharper measured corner but the stop turn is a great illusion of a sharper corner to some eyes.

In your opinion, is there a way to get the best of both worlds, using modern pipe power, without the negatives as you see them in older big flap designs? Or... am I just all wet? (distinct possibility)

Side note: and, if we are going for all the cake and eating it too... can it be done without excessive handle loading, because I've found I really am leaning towards less and less affinity for forcing planes through patterns. I currently fly with almost no handle overhang, fairly aft CG, and perhaps more elevator than flap, or just 1 to 1, but never more flap than elevator, since I have found I can build reasonable light.
Eric

   I have to think about that one for a while. But, as many people smarter than I have said over and over, you need to chose the approach that creates the fewest and smallest visible mistakes, and ignore "style", "presentation", etc. No one is close to flying perfect flights in *any* style, far from it, so the winning strategy is to make fewer mistakes and let the rest of it come out how it comes out.

   I think this is one of the problems we have had over the years, people look at flight after flight, consider them all perfect, and then assume that these other side issues like "presenting well" matter.

    Brett
Logged
Brett Buck
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
******
Online Online

Age: 240
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 7294


« Reply #16 on: January 10, 2017, 10:29:36 PM »

I knew that I'd get in trouble on that one. Evil  The correct translation is: "A guy I know has one and (he) buil(t) (it) extremely heavy."

Actually, I have the plans of the Thunder Gazer and always get them out for comparison purposes when I build something new.

So, Brett, if you were to redesign the MIG, what would you do to actually keep it MIG-like, fly well, and not become a clone of the Thunder Gazer?

  I would never clone a Thunder-gazer, if for no other reason that I wouldn't give David the satisfaction. Moreover, I *do* claim that my airplane evolved from the Imitation. You might put the Thundergazer plans down over a copy of the Imitation plans, and see what you see.
 
   Seriously, however. I think the Infinity flies better than the Thundergazer in most respects, with some interesting exceptions. I know the first time I came back into the wind on the overhead 8 with the Thundergazer, I almost lost sight of the airplane, because I expected it to float, like the Trivial Pursuit and Infinity, and it just kept going. We have had extensive discussions about what we like and do not like about the three airplanes (and always using the Impact as a reference, although from afar) and most of that got incorporated into the Thundergazer.

     The next design change I plan on making (for electric) is going to wind up pretty close to an Impact in most aspects, just a tad smaller.

     Brett
Logged
Jared Hays
Trade Count: (0)
Commander
****
Offline Offline

Age: 33
Posts: 301



Jared.Hays
« Reply #17 on: January 10, 2017, 10:31:55 PM »

My father and I want to build one of Windys LJ Sweeprs someday but more like the Black and White Sweeper 900

Logged
Scott Richlen
AMA Member
Trade Count: (0)
Captain
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 789


« Reply #18 on: January 11, 2017, 06:22:58 AM »

Quote
  I would never clone a Thunder-gazer, if for no other reason that I wouldn't give David the satisfaction. Moreover, I *do* claim that my airplane evolved from the Imitation. You might put the Thundergazer plans down over a copy of the Imitation plans, and see what you see.
 
   Seriously, however. I think the Infinity flies better than the Thundergazer in most respects, with some interesting exceptions. I know the first time I came back into the wind on the overhead 8 with the Thundergazer, I almost lost sight of the airplane, because I expected it to float, like the Trivial Pursuit and Infinity, and it just kept going. We have had extensive discussions about what we like and do not like about the three airplanes (and always using the Impact as a reference, although from afar) and most of that got incorporated into the Thundergazer.

     The next design change I plan on making (for electric) is going to wind up pretty close to an Impact in most aspects, just a tad smaller.

     Brett

Well, yes.  I think you are correct about laying the ThunderGazer plans over the Imitation and what I'd see (or not see) difference-wise.  But for the benefit of those of us not in the hunt for the Walker Cup and who might build a plane for the enjoyment of seeing it in the air (and for the day-dreamers and arm-chair pilots amongst us) please indulge us with your opinion on how to redesign the MIG so it would be smaller (to fit in a car and maybe powered by, say, an LA-46), take advantage of what we know about modern stunt-ship design, and still appear MIG-like.  (An Infinity painted deep red with white-outlined stars on its wings doesn't count...)

Please?
Logged
Brett Buck
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
******
Online Online

Age: 240
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 7294


« Reply #19 on: January 11, 2017, 10:04:01 AM »

Well, yes.  I think you are correct about laying the ThunderGazer plans over the Imitation and what I'd see (or not see) difference-wise.  But for the benefit of those of us not in the hunt for the Walker Cup and who might build a plane for the enjoyment of seeing it in the air (and for the day-dreamers and arm-chair pilots amongst us) please indulge us with your opinion on how to redesign the MIG so it would be smaller (to fit in a car and maybe powered by, say, an LA-46), take advantage of what we know about modern stunt-ship design, and still appear MIG-like.  (An Infinity painted deep red with white-outlined stars on its wings doesn't count...)

Please?

  Sorry, I just assumed that the most straightforward way was obvious, but maybe not. I would take the same approach that thousands of people did back in the 50's-70s with Nobler-based "original designs", and later with the CSC foam Gemini parts.  Take an Impact wing and tail, make the tips and the fuselage look like the airplane you want, then paint it red and white.

     I don't think there is any way to take these airplanes and make minor modifications to make them competitive against conventional airplanes in the 21st century. They were, with no insult intended, extreme even in the day, when they were still trying to figure out what to do with the tremendous power available with the 4-2 break 60s (I think the MIG actually had an OS60 of some sort, rather than the ST60 you might have expected).  It turns out that there was a better solution to that issue, once they stopped trying to run gigantic props, but it is to their credit that they had an idea and fully explored it. So you can't just trim a bit here and add a bit there and make consequentially different.

    If the "put a MIG fuselage on an Impact wing" approach doesn't appeal to you, I would suggest you just build it as it is, and start lifting weights. The airplanes can be made to fly respectably well, Windy did it, so can you. It's not as easy to dig out the last bit of performance as it is with other airplanes, but it will certainly do stunt patterns.  The differences  in performance we are talking about, as mentioned in some recent thread, are usually swamped by trim and power issues even at the Top 20 NATS qualifier level anyway. For almost any purpose short of that, you can have fun building and flying it, be competitive with your peers (as long as you can out-trim them), and have what you want. You will have to practice a lot more than some others, but we supposedly enjoy flying model airplanes, right?

   I cannot emphasize this point enough - the design differences between airplanes are almost always swamped by variations in alignment/workmanship/trim/power issues.   People gas on for years about various design points, but in practice any attempt to evaluate which design changes are valuable and not is almost impossible to determine by most people. They will build an airplane with certain design ideas, it either flies well or doesn't, and they will decide "that didn't work" or "that worked great". They are almost always wrong, the difference they are feeling is a small misalignment, a trim variation, or a power variation that has NOTHING to do with the design of the airplane, and they never really know whether the design is any good or not. Only with the most careful and repeatable methods (Paul Walker/Impact type approach) or massive statistics (100,000 Green Box Noblers) can you make any sense of the design issues involved.

    As an example, just in this thread, there are examples of "thundergazers build heavy" and "thundergazer wing broke off", which are pretty serious issues, I don't want my wing to break off, either. But other Thundergazers won a world championship and 4 NATs. They were all the same design, so we can immediately conclude that design wasn't the difference.  That happens in far more wubtle cases, as well, in 1000's of different ways.

    Put another way, for the most part, you can build any airplane you want and be able to be competitive if you do everything else better, because "everything else' makes more difference.


    Brett

 
Logged
Scott Richlen
AMA Member
Trade Count: (0)
Captain
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 789


« Reply #20 on: January 11, 2017, 10:43:10 AM »

So Brett, considering all that you have said and particularly focusing on the trim and power issue - I think for many off us, our planes are pretty straight and not too overly elephantine.  But the trim issues and some of the power issues escape us.  And these are the kind of issues that would be extremely difficult to address in written text.  Reams of words could be easily replaced by one flying session at the field with the right voice of experience looking on and advising.

So, I propose the "Grand PAMPA Tour."  This is what it would consist of: getting one of our notables (either you or Paul Walker or ?) to volunteer to tour the country (actually ping-ponging from club flying site to club flying site).  At each site a stunt clinic would be hosted by the resident club wherein the great unwashed (that is, the Un-Walker Cupped) would bring out their airplanes and get your (or Paul's or ?'s) input.  The "Tour" would instantly bring a major mass of flyers to a new level of understanding regarding trim and power and flying the pattern.  It would invigorate stuntdom throughout the land.  (Plus, if you came here you'd get to see the Air & Space Museum, Washington Monument, Smithsonian, etc.  So there would be some nice side benefits.)

Forget the MIG!  Let's do that instead! 
Logged
Randy Cuberly
2016 supporter
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Age: 76
Location: Tucson AZ
Posts: 2834



« Reply #21 on: January 11, 2017, 11:05:17 AM »

So Brett, considering all that you have said and particularly focusing on the trim and power issue - I think for many off us, our planes are pretty straight and not too overly elephantine.  But the trim issues and some of the power issues escape us.  And these are the kind of issues that would be extremely difficult to address in written text.  Reams of words could be easily replaced by one flying session at the field with the right voice of experience looking on and advising.

So, I propose the "Grand PAMPA Tour."  This is what it would consist of: getting one of our notables (either you or Paul Walker or ?) to volunteer to tour the country (actually ping-ponging from club flying site to club flying site).  At each site a stunt clinic would be hosted by the resident club wherein the great unwashed (that is, the Un-Walker Cupped) would bring out their airplanes and get your (or Paul's or ?'s) input.  The "Tour" would instantly bring a major mass of flyers to a new level of understanding regarding trim and power and flying the pattern.  It would invigorate stuntdom throughout the land.  (Plus, if you came here you'd get to see the Air & Space Museum, Washington Monument, Smithsonian, etc.  So there would be some nice side benefits.)

Forget the MIG!  Let's do that instead! 

I get it You're trying to "Kill Off" the Top fliers with overwork so the rest of us can have a chance!!!

That would certainly be effective!  I think it would also be more difficult to stage due to travel weather etc., etc., etc. than the Barnum and Bailey Circus!

 Layingdown Layingdown Layingdown Layingdown Layingdown Layingdown Layingdown Layingdown  Turn Turn

Randy Cuberly
Logged

Randy Cuberly
Tucson, AZ
john e. holliday
2017
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Age: 75
Location: Shawnee, KANSAS 66203-2379
Posts: 18029



« Reply #22 on: January 11, 2017, 11:22:19 AM »

You don't want the top flyers to critic your flying style,  you need people like the great Big Art Adimisin to watch your flights and tell you how it should be done.  He came to Topeka KS a few years ago and taught us a few things. 
Logged

I was always taught to respect my elders, but it keeps getting harder to find one.
Today I broke my personal record for most consecutive days lived.
John E. "DOC" Holliday
10421 West 56th Terrace
Shawnee, KANSAS  66203
AMA 23530
Brett Buck
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
******
Online Online

Age: 240
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 7294


« Reply #23 on: January 11, 2017, 11:54:44 AM »

You don't want the top flyers to critic your flying style,  you need people like the great Big Art Adimisin to watch your flights and tell you how it should be done.  He came to Topeka KS a few years ago and taught us a few things. 

     Uh, why not? And since when is Big Art (multiple time national competitor) not a "top flier"?  There is definitely an "art" to knowing how to coach people at various levels, but I think most of us know how to do that pretty well. The coaching I give for, say, David, is a lot different than I would for a beginner.

    I spend most of my time at contests either judging, or coaching in one way or another. It's pretty boring when you don't.

    Brett
Logged
Steve Thompson
2017
Trade Count: (0)
Lieutenant
*
Offline Offline

Age: 53
Posts: 70


« Reply #24 on: January 11, 2017, 02:26:30 PM »

"Put another way, for the most part, you can build any airplane you want and be able to be competitive if you do everything else better, because "everything else' makes more difference."  -  Brett

With race cars, motorcycles, shotguns, guitars, or most any type of "competition" that involves a machine, having the best equipment helps to a point and the individual's skill at using it makes the bigger difference.  It is noble how experts in control line help others to improve their equipment and skills.  My personal heros are Ted Fancher and Paul Walker. I had the opportunity in the early 1990's to watch them fly in Seattle area contests and they were friendly and helpful.  There is a lot that can be learned just by watching experts in action.  My thanks to them, Brett, and others for their contributions here.

There is a lot we can all do to help ourselves here with the "everything else".  Easily the best readily accessible information on trimming is the excellent articles by Paul Walker (Walker on Stunt) available on the Flying Lines website.   WWW.flyinglines.org

 
Logged
Scott Richlen
AMA Member
Trade Count: (0)
Captain
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 789


« Reply #25 on: January 11, 2017, 03:52:53 PM »

So Brett: are you "in" on the Grand PAMPA Tour?  We gotta start our planning soon!
Logged
Brett Buck
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
******
Online Online

Age: 240
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 7294


« Reply #26 on: January 11, 2017, 04:01:07 PM »

So Brett: are you "in" on the Grand PAMPA Tour?  We gotta start our planning soon!

   That's why God and Sparky gave us the internet.

    Brett
Logged
Larry Fernandez
Trade Count: (0)
Captain
*****
Offline Offline

Age: 59
Location: San Jose, Ca.
Posts: 846



« Reply #27 on: January 11, 2017, 04:46:13 PM »

   That's why God and Sparky gave us the internet.

    Brett

Thank Al Gore for inventing the internet.

Larry, Buttafucco Stunt Team
Logged
Tom Luciano
2015
Trade Count: (0)
Commander
*
Offline Offline

Age: 52
Posts: 311



« Reply #28 on: January 11, 2017, 05:40:39 PM »

Awesome thread guys! Very informative.

Tom
Logged

AMA 13001
phil c
2015
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1699


« Reply #29 on: January 11, 2017, 07:49:54 PM »

Brett- "No one is close to flying perfect flights in *any* style, far from it, so the winning strategy is to make fewer mistakes and let the rest of it come out how it comes out."

I'd allow that a good tactic, too specific to be a strategy, is to make 2-3 maneuvers that are noticeably better than the pack so they stand out.  I've seen Mr Fitzgerald do that a few times and it paid off very well.
Logged

phil Cartier
Mark Scarborough
2015
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Online Online

Age: 57
Location: Pullman Washington
Posts: 5902


« Reply #30 on: January 11, 2017, 08:09:06 PM »

Brett- "No one is close to flying perfect flights in *any* style, far from it, so the winning strategy is to make fewer mistakes and let the rest of it come out how it comes out."

I'd allow that a good tactic, too specific to be a strategy, is to make 2-3 maneuvers that are noticeably better than the pack so they stand out.  I've seen Mr Fitzgerald do that a few times and it paid off very well.

I guess I dont get your point, I would think you simply fly EVERY manuever as well as you can,, If yours are noticable better then that is what it is,,
Logged

For years the rat race had me going around in circles, Now I do it for fun!
EXILED IN PULLMAN WA
AMA 842137
Brett Buck
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
******
Online Online

Age: 240
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 7294


« Reply #31 on: January 11, 2017, 10:59:03 PM »

I didn't have time earlier, but I was more-or-less serious. The way we transfer the sort of information you want from the Grand Tour is exactly what we are doing here. I didn't get 10,000+ posts on SSW and 7058 posts (and a few thousand on the old RCO forum with Aldrich, or on the even older Compuserve forum) here *entirely* arguing stunt politics. These forums are the best solution yet devised to collaborate over a wide area and give you access to both experts in many/any topic, but also with people dealing with the same problems you have, or used to have. There's hardly anything in this thread that hasn't been discussed before at extraordinary length.  I can certainly say I have learned as much or more than I have taught, in fact, I learn an immense amount from all of these threads.

   This is contrasted to the supposed "Good Old Days" when you, at most, got one sort-of-on-topic, completely non-interactive, magazine article a month. Many of these were very well done, but it was a one-way transmission, and not at all interactive. And it was clear that being a good model airplane pilot, and being a good magazine writer, are two wildly different things.

   Apropos of this thread, you have to give credit to one of the first to use "modern" technology to transfer information - one Winfred Urtnowski. His tapes, usually sent out for free, was the first quasi-live way to fund out what he really did, in detail, and if you followed his approach, you *would* get a world-class finish. Almost no one, in the era we are talking about, did more to promote stunt and to provide good information for the good of the event. He/they were also experimenting with an approach and documenting it as it happened. I think they were worthy experiments, maybe they didn't lead to the ideal solution but neither they nor anyone else knew that at the time.

  Point being, you now have access to thousands of people, for the asking, fully interactive, and anything you want to know, someone here will know. To me that's far better than counting on a guru, no matter who it is, to spend a few hours out in a field with you.

     Brett
Logged
Randy Cuberly
2016 supporter
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Age: 76
Location: Tucson AZ
Posts: 2834



« Reply #32 on: January 11, 2017, 11:28:40 PM »

Brett,
I agree completely about Windy Urtnowski and believe He should have been inducted into the PAMPA Hall of Fame for those efforts.  Not sure if He ever was, but did see some resistance to doing it at the time it first came up.
I never understood that situation and don't wish to really bring it up again but I do think He deserved more credit than he was given at the time!

My earlier post about the "Grand Tour" being talked about came from an opinion that very much agrees with yours that the Forums and information gained at contests is probably better than trying to organize a tour full of travel that would depend on weather and attendance to be counted on well in advance of the actual event would be a great effort with little success compared to the monumental effort on the part of a few people!

I know I actually learned a good deal from you at the contest in Tucson just helping you by launching your airplane for practice flights and watching your patterns.  The conversation about your engines was interesting and helpful.

Looking forward to seeing you in the future!

Randy Cuberly
Logged

Randy Cuberly
Tucson, AZ
Scott Richlen
AMA Member
Trade Count: (0)
Captain
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 789


« Reply #33 on: January 12, 2017, 06:51:20 AM »

Brett:

I agree with you that the forums have been very valuable for informing and educating.  They are extremely valuable, and this discussion topic has been a good example of this.

However, in certain cases, a forum cannot provide the level of information and knowledge that you can get from an experience in reality.  Often when people try to describe the trimming problems they are having, they are challenged in coming up with the proper words to actually describe what they think is going on.  And then they get back a whole cornucopia of suggestions from people trying to be helpful; and which often aren't.  There is just a world of difference between reality and the ability of the descriptive word when it comes to things like trimming and flying since the tactile sense and other sensory inputs are so hard to describe (I hope this makes some sense.)

Contest experience can be informative, but again, in a limited manner.  The entrants of the contest are focused on competing and simply don't have the time or the right focus to conduct an on-the-spot clinic.

Granted, The Grand PAMPA Tour is a bit of a tongue-in-cheek suggestion on my part, but not without merit.  I regularly host shop sessions in my workshop and have helped our local flyers improve their building skills.  And I, in turn, have learned many of these skills by watching Windy's videos (fast-forwarding through the sanding segments!) and reading useful topics on this forum.  For instance, I make my tanks very differently after seeing some suggestions from Paul Walker.  I'm sure that you have noticed that I regularly "incite" you in these threads to get your input.  But in learning trimming and flying skills on your own, the learning curve tucks over pretty fast if there are no NATs caliber flyers in the area available and willing to host stunt clinics.

Now, if I could just get David Fitzgerald to transfer to Dulles as his home base.....  
« Last Edit: January 13, 2017, 07:03:52 AM by Scott Richlen » Logged
Mike Ferguson
AMA Member
Trade Count: (0)
Commander
*
Offline Offline

Age: 44
Posts: 210


« Reply #34 on: January 12, 2017, 07:10:01 AM »

Well, I'm currently building a Bee-Jay (thanks to Jim Dammerel for the foam cores!), which is essentially the MiG Sweeper and the Sweeper 900 shown in the pictures above. Mostly because of have memories of a couple of them being really, really good at times. I just want to see (and feel) how it flys for myself.

My main differences between those original planes and what I'm building are 1) a modern powerplant and 2) a modern Tom Morris control system. Otherwise, it's build the plane light, straight, accurate, and rigid, but keep it the same design-wise.

I honestly don't expect it to be *better* than an Impact or Thunder Gazer; I just want to see how close it can get with modern power, modern controls, and modern trimming tools and methods. I also want to see how it flies differently. The 'stall corner' got mentioned above (where the corner looks tighter than it is); I'd like to be able to fly it and video it just to see what's really happening.

Will post in the Building forum shortly to show progress.
Logged
EddyR
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
******
Offline Offline

Location: East of Charlotte NC
Posts: 2043


« Reply #35 on: January 12, 2017, 12:50:47 PM »

This is actually LJ. Flaps narrowed and wing shortened just a little . Flew well with ST/46 and later ST/56. Used it in several contest even the KOI one year. Bill Rich and I used to get together twice a week and he told me several times that this was his favorite plane to watch going through the pattern. It flew great .Bell crank was in center with aero shaft pushrod in center.
EddyR


* twin boom.jpg (47.71 KB, 845x378 - viewed 75 times.)
Logged

South of Cocord NC -25 miles from the Huntersville field
Randy Powell
2016 supporter
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Location: Wildwood, WA
Posts: 9753


TreeTop Flyer


randympowell@yahoo.com
« Reply #36 on: January 12, 2017, 01:09:41 PM »

I built plenty of high aspect and very large planes. 80+" wing spans. None pulled very hard. Usually very light touch. Too light, mostly.
Logged

Member in good standing of P.I.S.T
(Politically Incorrect Stunt Team)
AMA 67711

Randy Powell
Matt Spencer
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
******
Offline Offline

Location: Elsewhere .
Posts: 2271



« Reply #37 on: January 13, 2017, 06:55:16 AM »

Quote
I don't think there is any way to take these airplanes and make minor modifications to make them competitive against conventional airplanes in the 21st century. They were, with no insult intended, extreme even in the day, when they were still trying to figure out what to do with the tremendous power available with the 4-2 break 60s (I think the MIG actually had an OS60 of some sort, rather than the ST60 you might have expected).  It turns out that there was a better solution to that issue, once they stopped trying to run gigantic props, but it is to their credit that they had an idea and fully explored it. So you can't just trim a bit here and add a bit there and make consequentially different.

The Flying Muddles Sweeper states a FSR 60 OS ! and ( maybe ) a 16 in prop



If a 40 FSR is GOOD a 60 FSR Has to be BETTER .  Wink
Logged
Mike Ferguson
AMA Member
Trade Count: (0)
Commander
*
Offline Offline

Age: 44
Posts: 210


« Reply #38 on: January 13, 2017, 08:52:20 AM »

The Flying Muddles Sweeper states a FSR 60 OS ! and ( maybe ) a 16 in prop



If a 40 FSR is GOOD a 60 FSR Has to be BETTER .  Wink

"Bigger is better" does kind of encapsulate the design theory of the various Sweepers.

FWIW, the MiG Sweeper did use a Big Jim ST 60, as did most of the Windy/Big Jim collaborations of the Eighties.
Logged
proparc
2015
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
*
Offline Offline

Location: Mesquite,Texas
Posts: 2240


« Reply #39 on: January 13, 2017, 09:23:59 AM »





If a 40 FSR is GOOD a 60 FSR Has to be BETTER .  Wink

That's Right!!! Layingdown Layingdown Layingdown
Logged

Milton "Proparc" Graham
Brett Buck
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
******
Online Online

Age: 240
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 7294


« Reply #40 on: January 13, 2017, 10:00:48 AM »

"Bigger is better" does kind of encapsulate the design theory of the various Sweepers.

FWIW, the MiG Sweeper did use a Big Jim ST 60, as did most of the Windy/Big Jim collaborations of the Eighties.

    Really?  I recall otherwise, but I would have to go check the plans. I could easily be wrong, it was a *long* time ago. I do recall that the engine, whatever it was, ran pretty good by the standards of the day. Given than a 40FSR is substantially more powerful than an ST60, a 60FSR would be a real beast. Given the notorious tendency of FSRs to run away, I can't imagine what happens when a 60 does it!

    Brett
Logged
jose modesto
2016 supporter
Trade Count: (0)
Captain
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 751


« Reply #41 on: January 13, 2017, 04:58:13 PM »

The Mig had a tiger 60. A little nugget The nose wheel 1/8" wire was turned and was the rear tung muffler mount. Creative windy always looking for weight savings
The BJ at 750 Squares  was not the same plane as the 900 squares sweeper  the 900 had a 12" nose 21" tail
I had the wreck for many years in my cellar. I have the titanium landing gear for the 900 Windy and his uncle spent days cutting the landing gear ( again weight savings)
Brett the ST60 motor was modified by Windy. He removed most of the head fins,various other grinding on motor.(saving weight again) motor was hard to recognize
Big Jim would write on the motors (don't cut me no grinding.
Jose Modesto
Logged
Matt Spencer
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
******
Offline Offline

Location: Elsewhere .
Posts: 2271



« Reply #42 on: January 14, 2017, 12:04:00 AM »

This Suckers not entirely unrelated to the High A/R Sweepers , other than the wings Almost a NASA 23 % Airfoil , Flaps Integral & theyre only the span of the tailplane .
If Youve walked a good three miles to the field , and youve forgoten the plug leads , You  Short a screw driver across .
Or Forgotten the Squeeze Bottle you Suck the Fuel in with the ' How Conveniant ' spare fuel tube .
And If the Wind Surfers are out , By the time you Get There ; You Woulddnt Trudge Back , uphill ( It FOUR Miles on the Way Back !  Wink .Without FLYING .

The Overhead Eights Have you thinking youre about to join the Wind Surfers , First One Your ARM is yanked Up over your head .
Fore Warned is FOREARMED . Layingdown
Next Time you HOLD IT DOWN 9 A bit like when youve bludged a lift with the folkerts on the back of a flat deck Jap Tripe ( Toyota ? ) Nice Breeze . Grin

The opportunity is to good to pass up .
Hold the Plane Firmly ( That FIRMLY AGAIN ! ) By The Undercarage under the Fuse . A Good Grip .Get it in clean air aft above the cab ,
And Push Down Firmly with One Finger on a Wing Flap .
The Grip on the UUdercarage Instantly Becomes a Death Lock .
Chastised you Retraet back behind the Shelter of The Cab .
( Bit like Sumbody & a Chevy Nova ! He mustve been watching Daktari - A seat over the headlamp should be ideal . With a Seat Belt .  Grin )

You can try it Edge On , and Tell Us if its the Wide Flat Fuse , Like these Americans seem to Prefer .. Or Inetia , negative side slip , or what .

ANYWAY Counter to Previous Coments , THIS particularr plane was at it most Tension , Overhead . Hugh
It'd Glide Two Laps if you whipped the transition at ' the Cut ' ,
And 4 stroke effortlessly on a 12x6 through the scedule . If on 15-20% Nitro . like a ' Big Block - elephant motor .



Seeing the Original Question is about " What'd Ya Do ?' . I Did This ! One Piece for Ridgidity . So Youre Gunna Needa Bigger CAR !  Layingdown Layingdown
Logged
Brett Buck
Trade Count: (0)
Admiral
******
Online Online

Age: 240
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 7294


« Reply #43 on: January 14, 2017, 12:13:57 AM »

The Mig had a tiger 60. A little nugget The nose wheel 1/8" wire was turned and was the rear tung muffler mount. Creative windy always looking for weight savings
The BJ at 750 Squares  was not the same plane as the 900 squares sweeper  the 900 had a 12" nose 21" tail
I had the wreck for many years in my cellar. I have the titanium landing gear for the 900 Windy and his uncle spent days cutting the landing gear ( again weight savings)
Brett the ST60 motor was modified by Windy. He removed most of the head fins,various other grinding on motor.(saving weight again) motor was hard to recognize
Big Jim would write on the motors (don't cut me no grinding.
Jose Modesto


   Thanks, Jose, I must have been thinking about a different airplane (the early-80's Sweeper, maybe).

    Big Jim was a smart guy. I have never understood why so many people insist on carving engines up. Particularly in this case, where you are saving tiny amount of weight on a GIGANTIC airplane.

     Brett
Logged
jose modesto
2016 supporter
Trade Count: (0)
Captain
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 751


« Reply #44 on: January 14, 2017, 03:43:27 AM »

Brett. The large blue sweeper had the OS motor.1981? 21st place at Nat's
After that model Windy is introduced to Big Jim and the partnership begins. 5 straight top 5 finishes with the BJ design. Windy flew five different airplanes from 83 to 87
Not bad for a new design.
Black Sunday was the best of the series BJ's.
We all thought black Sunday was on its way to winning the Nat's
Then an elevator horn breaks in flight splatt.
Windy had to build a replacement model the Killer Bee  also top 5
Bob Baron used the LJ 46 for 2 top five finishes (this is my favorite size of the high aspect ratio models)
Jose Modesto
Logged

Tags:
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM