Best Wind Airplane

[Paul Taylor]

I know 90% is the pilot but what has been your best performance plane.

I have not flown a lot of planes but so far my (Mike Waldron gifted )Shrike seems to be like a Honey Badger at times. If the air is swirling it gets a bit Squirrley, but that’s probably more pilot than Shrike. 🤪

[Ken Culbertson]

1975 Surveyor.  Fox 40, 625 sq" 48oz.  Flatback back airfoil like today's Pat Johnson designs. Side area was well balanced.  Would "wind fly" in anything over 15.

Ken

[Mike Griffin]

Ted Fancher modified the IMITATION before I released the kit a few years ago with his permission.  Eric Rule did the CAD work
for me.  That model flew very well in the wind and glided like a dream.

Mike

[Dave_Trible]

Always been the Shameless.

[Ken Culbertson]

Always been the Shameless.

That plane just begs to be sent up in a 20mph breeze and fly all day on one short tank. 

Ken

[frank williams]

RingMaster

[Motorman]

Sig Banshee, Brodak Tanager.

[Dan McEntee]

  A lot will have todo with the engine/prop combination. I have had several airplanes powered by ST. G-.51s that were a handful in the wind, true wind that is, not turbulence of a light breeze going through the nearby trees! There is a difference. My fortunes changed when I started to use APC 12.25 X 3.75 props on them and spinning the engines up. That was the first combination that I had ever really felt the effect oof the high  RPM/flatter pitch approach. But the big thing is to know when it's wind or turbulence. NOTHING flies well in turbulence! Ask anyone that has flown at Buder Park when the wind comes through the trees or at the old Garden State Circle Burners flying field. 5 to 10mph straight line wind is easy to work with but sometimes 5mph through the trees can be really nasty!! Flying at SIG Field was a perfect example. If he wind was straight down the runway, I got to where I could comfortably fly in 15 mph + wind. But if the wind was from the east or west rolling over the edge of the runway or coming across the hangers, it could be shear terror at 10mph or above. The L pad at Muncie has it's good and bad wind directions and many of us have been bitten by those over the years..
    Type at you later,
    Dan McEntee

[John Miller]

I always felt that Effflander's (sp) Fire Cracker was a good wind design.

[Dennis Moritz]

Flite Streak. Buster, any of those similar CG models and updates. I had a light weight, 27 ounce, modified Magician, powered by a lowered compression Tower 40. Three thin Tower head gaskets? That flew off the L Pad when half the folks didn't risk it.

[John Park]

I always felt that Effflander's (sp) Fire Cracker was a good wind design.

Eifflaender - of Progress Aero Works (PAW) fame.  The best wind design I've flown (and I mean wind - I live in England!) was GMA's 'English' Peacemaker with a PAW 2.5cc diesel.  Tony Eifflaender said his best Peacemaker was one he'd built to a flying weight of 16 oz. - that must have been in the days when you could still buy good balsa!

[gene poremba]

 smoothie

[GERALD WIMMER]

Hello I like my old Ringmaster with its Enya 45, flies well in the wind and suits our NZ Sportsman (basically beginner pattern) with only rounds and no squares.
Never been crashed but has been recovered and 'de-oiled' from a lot of flying.

Regards Gerald

[Ty Marcucci]

First define "wind".  I read, the night after the last flight in OTS at a VSC, that the Chief was terrible in the winds in Stunt News by Bob Palmer.  He said as a result, he designed the Smoothie.. I had a Smoothie back in 71/72 era when I lived in Pocatello, Idaho The winds the re were no joke and NOTHING could fly in them, especially my Smoothie.  I now take a kite with me.. Winds get too high,I launch my kite and just like Charlie Brown, the winds die.. It has become a standing joke when we fly...
I have fought the wind and won and many times lost a model. I think the answer is "It all depends"....

[john e. holliday]

Guys may argue with me but the Shameless was one I could fly in anything.  Thought I had a contest won until second round when change in judges messed every thing up.  After the round people were coming up to me telling me that second flight was one of the best I had flown.   Time for awards I went from a first to a fourth.  That is when I decided stunt will be flown without getting serious again.  I also flew stunt just to help clubs with entry numbers.  Also never flew stunt at that contest again.

Yes I may have got up on the wrong side of the bed again.

[Curt D Contrata]

The Shrike and Staris are both “sister” models to the Satona.
When we were discussing the winds that were becoming common for the Nats in Muncie, Randy designed the Satona to be a 40 sized piped airplane that could be built under 50 ounces and still present as a large model to the Judges. The Shrike and Staris were drawn up when we returned home from the Nationals in 2002 and released shortly after.

Flying in wind takes lots of practice flying in windy conditions. The placement of maneuvers is critical, as is power, and confidence in your equipment. For me, the smaller/lighter design was easier to manage through the wind.

Curt

[EricV]

The Shrike and Staris are both “sister” models to the Satona.
When we were discussing the winds that were becoming common for the Nats in Muncie, Randy designed the Satona to be a 40 sized piped airplane that could be built under 50 ounces and still present as a large model to the Judges. The Shrike and Staris were drawn up when we returned home from the Nationals in 2002 and released shortly after.

Flying in wind takes lots of practice flying in windy conditions. The placement of maneuvers is critical, as is power, and confidence in your equipment. For me, the smaller/lighter design was easier to manage through the wind.

Curt

I have to concur with Curt & Randy's idea, my PA40 Piped plane (not the UL Ultra Light 40, regular full size PA40) based on a Shrike is a great wind plane. The size seems easier to hang onto and the motor run is slightly different too, even though its a pipe, the little 40 seems like its more prone to be always "on" than the larger motors, with less break, with less reserve to enhance unwanted wind-up, it makes the wind seem less of an issue (at least when set up correctly per Randy). That and the lighter 40 planes probably tend to balance less forward which is another good thing in the wind. At least those are this duffer's thoughts anyway.

EricV

[dave siegler]

The best airplane in the wind is your airplane, not my airplane. 

[dennyleo]

smoothie

While judging stunt, I've watched some experienced flyers put up incredibly consistent flights in awful winds with a Smoothie.

Dennis

[Martin Quartim]

Thundergazer and Bandolero (B. Eather)

Martin

[Bob Hunt]

I've had a number of great wind airplanes, starting with the Caprice design - the "numbers" for which came from Gene Schaffer; I supplied the aesthetics... I've had three of them over the years and they all exhibited fantastic wind and turbulence performance. I flew the second Caprice at VSC for a number of years, and many of those contests had very high winds. Another favorite wind airplane for me is my Genesis Extreme. Actually all of the Genesis series, the Saturn series, and the Crossfire series planes were very good in wind, leading me to believe that it has more to do with powertrain setup and trim than airplane design.

Bob Hunt

[Brett Buck]

Actually all of the Genesis series, the Saturn series, and the Crossfire series planes were very good in wind, leading me to believe that it has more to do with powertrain setup and trim than airplane design.

   Exactly! That's what is missing in these kinds of discussions - the engine setup is absolutely everything, and not just which engine and which prop. The details matter so much that you can have the same engine/pipe/prop either help you or hurt you depending on the other settings.

   Smaller airplanes do tend to help, just because you can hold on to them without getting overwhelmed with pull, but again, that is controlled by how the engine responds.

     Brett

[Dick Pacini]

There is a difference between flying in the wind and wind flying.  I heard many stories about Gene Schaffer's dead stick wind flying.  I am sure Bob Hunt can attest to this.

[Ken Culbertson]

There is a difference between flying in the wind and wind flying.  I heard many stories about Gene Schaffer's dead stick wind flying.  I am sure Bob Hunt can attest to this.

They are quite related though.  With the planes we were flying in the 60's and early 70's you could "wind fly" a lot of the pattern in anything over about 15, 20 would be better.  Exceptions of course like inverted and the RWO.  I know because I did it.   I never went over about 60 degrees and the maneuvers were not contest quality.  I understand that Gene was able to go way beyond that.  We built special planes just for "wind flying".  The point is that you don't need power in the wind until you have to start turning into the wind over 45.  That is where the pipes and active timer electrics have changed the game.  I grew up in the "narrow side area" era and in my opinion, it was lack of power that led us into the huge side area era.  Now that we have virtually unlimited power available is a large side area still the right answer?

Ken

[Brett Buck]

  That is where the pipes and active timer electrics have changed the game.  I grew up in the "narrow side area" era and in my opinion, it was lack of power that led us into the huge side area era.  Now that we have virtually unlimited power available is a large side area still the right answer?

     Two things.

    First, the reason you could wind fly with old airplanes is that the airfoils were very thin, which was in turn because of the lack of power. You had to keep them thin to gain penetration and retain momentum, since the engine wasn't going to do it for you. By the same token, as soon as you had unlimited power, you could use thick airfoils to add parasitic drag, and overcome it with that power. This greatly improved the airspeed stability, but made it harder to maintain groundspeed into the wind, and it's very difficult to wind-fly these airplanes.

     Second - I am more-or-less alone on the "large side area" as you refer to it, trying to handle the other aspects of the overkill power, specifically engine effects on trim. The idea was to limit the sideslip and yaw transients driven by the astronomical power. Lots of people disagree with that idea, and are doing much different things with success. Igor and others are doing something massively different, others are more-or-less ignoring the problem.

    Brett

[Mark Romanowitz]

     Second - I am more-or-less alone on the "large side area" as you refer to it, trying to handle the other aspects of the overkill power, specifically engine effects on trim. The idea was to limit the sideslip and yaw transients driven by the astronomical power. Lots of people disagree with that idea, and are doing much different things with success. Igor and others are doing something massively different, others are more-or-less ignoring the problem.

    Brett

Brett, could you expand on this a bit? Are you in favor of more side area or less? I'm just missing some context here coming to the discussion late.. Interesting subject..   

Regarding "wind flying" I always thought it would be cool to try, but never had the guts or an airplane willing to risk learning with..

Mark

[Ken Culbertson]

Regarding "wind flying" I always thought it would be cool to try, but never had the guts or an airplane willing to risk learning with..

Mark

Mark, it is really fun.  All you need is a rather nose heavy plane around 450-500 squares with a "thin" airfoil.  The key is that you have to be able to whip it.  When the motor starts to quit get up to 45 degrees down wind and dive at about 30 degrees until you are just about into the wind then start a large lazy eight.  You will be surprised how easy it is.  Don't even try with a "modern" PA, the drag is too much to get momentum.  I have done it recently with an ARF Nobler.  "Back in the day" we hand launched them running downwind and whipped them into the eight. 

Ken

[Brett Buck]

Brett, could you expand on this a bit? Are you in favor of more side area or less? I'm just missing some context here coming to the discussion late.. Interesting subject.. 

   Ted Fancher once described my airplane as "3 billboards flying in formation".  I mentioned it here only because, while I am doing it, not everyone agrees with the premise and many people just ignore the topic entirely.

 I would suggest the other thread (fuselage shape...) for a better discussion.

    Brett

[M Spencer]

This thing was pretty good , up to 20 / 25 mph winds . When it'd start to get blustered .
So we tried a 10 x 4 three blade . But the resonance sounded like the top off the motor
was about to jump ship . Might try a differant plug , next time. Or a G-51 r.c. .



The Folkerts was designed / concieved around 76 , for if you could stand up , it'd fly .
When your flying it each inch of the way , it works . Kinda thing where youve got to
' put it down ' , and assume itll end up downwind , untill somebody grabs it , hang on .

Sp both run spuce spar caps , and dont spare the glue . So turbulance wont shake em apart .

[John Park]

I recall Claus Maikis's Loriot, a nice-looking .35-powered design to which he referred as his 'windy weather model' on account of its thin wing section and overall modest dimensions.  I think the AMA Plans Service has a plan of it - might be worth a look.