Here are a couple of pictures of the new plane. It's in base color. A sort of metallic silver. since it's base color, it looks dull at this point, but trust me, it will be a very bright metallic silver when the clear coat goes on.

Now, if I can just settle on a trim scheme...

Mark,

All the time. Simple's my middle name (or is that my intellectual capability?)

Actually, I've had several ideas. Painting is like that. You keep having ideas until you shoot paint and are committed. Some planes, the paint scheme is etched in by brain when I'm building it. Others, like this one, it keeps shifting around. Ohh, Ohh, I could do this, or that or whatever. In the end, I'll do something and live with it.

One thing about this one. Overall, the surface prep came out pretty well (apart from some structural stuff we discussed before). And let me tell you, errors are pretty obvious with metallic silver. Worst color there is (apart from black) for screaming mistakes.

>>uh, yeah next to Candy colors,, <<

Did I mention the silver was an undercoat color?

Yea, I'm vacillating on this one. I have some ideas, but I don't want to get into some 8 hours tape job with a ton of backmasking. So I'm planning out something that won't require multiple over taping and back taping; just lay down the design and cover what you don't want painted. Only regret is that I think it may be kinda dark overall. Guess you can't have everything.

Clint,

We'll see. I have some ideas. got home too late today to start, but I hope to start taping tomorrow. I finally have the idea more or less set.

Bill,

Some. I have the first (I suppose it's an under-trim) color sort of taped. I'm debating on the bottom right now. Same as top or a wild idea I have. Hard to tell at this point. While I didn't want to get into a really complicated trim scheme, I did decide to do some star things that are a bit¢h to tape. This scheme will be a bit more subtle than I usually do and somewhat darker. I'll post some pics when I get a bit further along. Tonight, I have to work on my son's computer, so I don't know how much I'll get done, but should have the rest of the week to mess with it.

Ty,

That was a thought. I'm trying an idea that I have done before (gee, I've never done that). The general idea is to use various shades of metallic silver and bronze for (as it turns out) a fairly complicated trim scheme involving weird stars and other such items then to shoot transparent colors over the top. I will be interesting, anyway and I'm sure I will regret it.

Frank,

Nice to see you on again. It MAY be a beautiful plane in the end. Tough to tell at this point. One advantage so far is at least it's straight and pretty light.

Frank,

Well, while not actually a danger when I'm painting, I was somewhat concerned that the thing may be too light. The plane is about 640 square inches and will have a RO-Jett 65 for power. All up weight prior to finish (with everything bolted on: engine, tank, pipe, prop, spinner gear - ready to fly) the thing weighed about 38oz. With the lift potential of the wing, I was a bit concerned that the thing may come in under 50oz. But with me on the paint gun, that's not all that likely. Like shop space (no matter how much room you have, stuff seems to multiply to fill it), no matter what the paint budget, it seems that I always manage to fill it and an ounce or two over. If I had 25oz of paint budget, I'd find a way to have a 26oz finish. Sigh... So far it's hanging in there. In base color, I had added a total of 4oz to the airframe. Hopefully I can keep the trim color under 4oz (since I will be sort of piling on with trim and transparent overcoat) and 2oz or so for the topcoat. That's a 10oz finish. That would be grand. I can always add ballast.   

Mark,

Well, as I said, I doubt it will be a problem.

Billy,

See, ask a simple question and get a dissertation.

Well, considering the lift potential of the wing (640 square inches and an airfoil similar to a TP) and the size of the flaps, too light and it will be uncontrollable in corners and twitchy as heck. When the lift potential of the wing far exceeds the payload it's asked to carry, it can make for some interesting flying. Ask Ted sometime about his experience with the "Too Light Tucker".

I've only had this happen with a plane I've built once (it's usually the other way around; a tubby plane with not enough lift potential to carry the load). A 9 to 1 AR plane with a 620 square inch wing. The plane weighed 41 oz with a very, very long tail moment and TVC of up around .62. It was entirely unflyable until ballast was added. At about 55oz it became marginally flyable. At 64oz is was a pretty good plane sans the usual problems with high AR planes. Had the most consistent, killer turn of any plane I've ever owned but that didn't happen until I got it over 60oz. Payload has to be balanced with lift potential. Depending on design, the window is usually pretty wide and you're better off being on the light end of the envelope. Some designs, like the high AR job, the window in much narrower and due to other design factors, makes it intersting to fly if your out of the window at either end. The further out you are, the more, ah, challenging it gets.

It's a matter of design. If this plane is sub 50oz, I would need to severely reduce either the amount of flap area or mess with the control linkage to substantially reduce the control throw (probably near the 2 to 1 mark). It is designed to come in around 55-58oz and would probably be ok up to as much as 62oz. At, say, 57oz, it should be a real killer. At under 50oz, it would be quite a challenge to fly consistenly. We'll see. I'm normally something of a lead foot with a spray gun so I'm not expecting it to be under 50. My best guess right now, based on what I have so far, is 55oz.

The current design I'm flying (on which the new plane is based) was originally built a bit under 49oz. It was a marginal plane to fly, especially in the wind. Had a very inconsistent corner. Really hard not to bounce and just really unpredictable. It flew OK, more or less, in the calm, kinda, but in the wind it was a pretty wild trip. But a change to 15% smaller flaps with a few degrees less throw and the addition of about 5oz in ballast (mostly for trim reasons) made it a pretty decent flier. The change from an OS40VF to a RO-Jett 65 didn't hurt in dragging through some tough spots, though I had to add about 3/4oz of lead to the nose to compensate for the reduced weight of the engine and keep the CG consistent. Current weight of the plane is 54.5oz (on 625 squares) and it flies rather well.
 
Like anything else, weight (or I would say, rather, payload) is another design factor. I hear guys say, "lighter is always better". I would say, lighter is usually better, depending on other design factors.

Bill,

Yea, Bill Werwages's designs are a good case in point. The wings are not designed to carry a lot of payload. They don't have the lift potential of something like a Trivial Pursuit. They have other qualities that make them attractive, but weight carrying isn't one of them. So the envelope for lift potential vs. payload is a good deal more narrow than something like the Trivial Pusuit. Get the weight in the window and they fly very, very well. Outside of it and you probably are going to have problems. Due to the sort of structure constraints we have, it's unlikely you could get very far out of the envelope at the light end. Unless it's made of air. It's just not really possible to get, say, a USA-1 under 43 ounces unless it's a real flexiflyer. So it's unlikely you'd ever see the problems with too little payload. But as you know, you get much about 56 or 57 ounces with one and they are a dog.

With the plane I'm finishing, the payload window is considerable bigger than a Werwage design. But because so much lift is generated by the wing design, it's possible with thoughtful construction to build the thing too light and be to far under the ideal payload. I doubt it's going to be a concern with this plane, but can see how it could happen.

I shot the first trim color on last night and the darned tape wouldn't stay down in a couple of places. The drawback of using metallic colors. Tape doesn't stick all that well. So I'll need to do some backmasking tonight and retouch a couple of places. Hope I can match up with the metallic silver. Sigh... Man, nothing frustrate me more that tape creep.

HI Randy,

It is a good point to bring up about design weight.  Many people do not understand that aspect.  I have seen Patternmasters over 80 oz. that fly extremely well (but yuo sure don't want to get one in high winds!  It will separater your shoulder! LOL!!)

Good looking scheme from what I see on the tape job so far! (and thanks on the answers to the *toners* question!)

Mongo
AKA: Big Bear

Man, I'm tired of cutting out weird shaped stars. Especially little ones. But, for all that, I'm just about ready to shoot on the next color. Slow process. And there are more stars to come. Yikes!

So much for simple.

Howard,

The Slider is OK. Fixed again anyway. I'll try it out this weekend. Man, it took a lot to get the rear bulkhead back together. But I think it will be OK now. I hope.

The new plane should be lighter and with a better layout in the nose to absorb the additional torque of the 65. Hopefully, not more cracked bulkheads.

What, no pictures??  Windy always shows HIS boo boos in his videos.................. 

To be totally honest (and not being a wise A$$), I do not understand how y'all have so many problems in each airplane that is finished. ()

Mongo