Author Topic: Classic vs. Modern (Read 4297 times)

Steve Kientz · « **on:** January 22, 2007, 04:28:41 PM »

Is it just me or do the classic planes have more character? It doesn't seem to matter whether it's stunt, speed or combat they just look right. I'm just relearning to fly(sport 1/2A in the late '60s),but alot of todays designs are all function. I'm not trying to start any arguments, this is just my opinion. I'm sure to be in the top 5% you need to be cutting edge<but where are the classic(sexy?) lines of yesterday?

Steve Kientz · « **Reply #1 on:** January 22, 2007, 04:54:28 PM »

Hello Ty.I remember running around the house "flying" my mini voodoo(maybe 4yrs old). At the age of 5,I received a profile Shoestring(orange finish),my favorite plane of ALL time.My father 's team mate( Steve Ragsdale) built that one .I still remember being listed as the owner when my father flew it at local contest (balloonbust mostly).That plane along with all the rest of my fathers disappeared when a "friend" was served with divorce papers.25 years worth of C/L planes and engines gone. Thats probably part of the reason I'm fond of the old stuff.

P.S.
I'll take a '50s ferrari over the new ones anyday!

Steve Kientz · « **Reply #2 on:** January 22, 2007, 07:27:00 PM »

I need to admit a weakness for anything from WWI or WWII,whether new model or old . They just look right.I was at Muncie last year as a spectator and really liked all the P-51's from Brazil.I was with a full time R/C flyer and he wanted one really bad.He now has a Flite Streak ARF to tinker with,might get him back from the DARKSIDE yet!

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #3 on:** January 23, 2007, 02:29:11 AM »

Yes, it seems that many of the modern airplanes are just "machines" based on Pattern Masters or SVs, etc. And the new wave of ARFs will do nothing to bring back originality. However....

There will always be development, and we are now seeing some new airplanes with some personality. Look at Don Hutchinson's beautiful F86, and his profile series. Randy Powell's new airplanes are beautiful. He has had pictures on this site. Look at Billy's P47. There will be more in future, but unfortunately, more and more people now want the instant gratification of the BARFs. This will hurt developement, but will never stop it.

In my own case, I have always done my own thing, and you can look for my "Top Hat" in Flying models this year. I have the article finished, and have some more work to complete the CAD drawing. Look at the "Top Hat" picture below.

Elsewhere, Bill Little and I had some fun talking about our "Skunk Works", but it is true, that I have some other radical items in the works. I guess I have always been among those who is willing to try something different, and people like Jack Sheeks, Charles Mackey, and Don Hutchinson, are an even larger influence now than in the past.

My problem, like many of us, is the limited time available.

Leester · « **Reply #4 on:** January 23, 2007, 03:17:02 AM »

Hey Tom: The Top Hat looks great, what are the specs. ? Will look forward to the article.

Keith Spriggs · « **Reply #5 on:** January 23, 2007, 05:27:24 AM »

Tom, The Top Hat is a very unique looking plane. I really like it. Will be looking forward to the article.

Steve Kientz · « **Reply #6 on:** January 23, 2007, 05:52:07 AM »

Tom, the Tophat looks great,very classic lines.By new i mean't PA style machines.WWII airplanes will always be a class of their own.

Bob Reeves · « **Reply #7 on:** January 23, 2007, 11:35:29 AM »

Except for semi scale and elliptical winged ships they are all scaled up Noblers with different looking fuselages.

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #8 on:** January 23, 2007, 11:15:46 PM »

Bob,
Been flying since grammar school. Got my 1st AMA license as a Junior was in 1957..AMA #7544. (I have them all since then in a book)

I have never had a "Nobler", and see no reason to break that chain.

BTW.. Did you know that all airliners are just modified DC3s???

rob biddle · « **Reply #9 on:** January 24, 2007, 02:04:20 AM »

Hi Tom,
As you have responded to a post of mine in a similar manner I was wondering if I had sensed a little bias

In response to the original thread, I find that even though I like the flight characterisitics of the modern designs better, I find flying them constantly feels a little "sterile".

Thats why I really love the classic designs, they really evoke a feel of a by-gone era, and every one of them is different.

Cheers, Rob.

Tom Niebuhr · « **Reply #10 on:** January 24, 2007, 03:39:33 AM »

Rob,

No real bias, except that I have always felt the "Nobler" ,although a ground breaker, is Ugly.

Like you, and many of us I love the Classics.

I think with modern power, the best of the Classics are as good as most, with the advantage of being a multi event airplane. I hope that the Classics are always flown.

With that said, I also feel that for the top levels of competition, the larger airplanes are needed, both because they present differently and that is what the judges are used to seeing, and because to a certain degree they are like flying with power steering. They have excellent penetration in bad conditions, and are solid in good conditions. The new, larger engines are making it better and better.

In most cases, the .40 to .46 size airplane is great. This is the ideal size airplane for most fliers, without breaking the piggy bank. If the Top 20 all went back to the smaller airplanes, you would still see impressive flying, but I don't see it happening. The added power that is now available is wonderful.

We should still be able to have modern original, beautiful designs, that take advantage of all that has been learned.

The topic of this thread is really that the cookie cutter airplanes that we see so often now, have lost the "class" of the "Classics". To that, I totally agree. The standard "numbers" have been applied and they all look similar. I felt that when "originality" was removed from the appearance description and guidelines of the US pattern, we lost part of the zest. Now with the Arfs, sadly we will lose more, because fewer people will be persuing the craft of designing and building AND flying.

Steve Kientz · « **Reply #11 on:** January 24, 2007, 05:27:50 AM »

Well said

Paul Smith · « **Reply #12 on:** January 24, 2007, 06:59:46 AM »

The true Classics were all built around limited power, as in Fox, McCoy, and K&B plain bearing .35's. With limited power choices, the designers were contrained to work on airframe design and paint jobs. The result was some real beauties made by Bob Gialdini, and Don Bambrick.

Modern airplanes, which could use ,65's, and now, for some really strange reason, .91's, have virtually unlimited power. Heck, electrics have no motor limit at all. While there is still some work on airplanes, it's infinately easier when you can just overpower it. The result, simple : boring design.

Steve hit it right !!! Classics have more character,

Is it just me or do the classic planes have more character?

Randy Powell · « **Reply #13 on:** January 24, 2007, 02:56:16 PM »

Oh, I don't know. I like my elliptical plane. I thought it had some character.

roger gebhart · « **Reply #14 on:** January 24, 2007, 02:59:42 PM »

Nice Airplane. I agree it is loaded with character but, it has the feel of some of the older designs. IMHO

Paul Smith · « **Reply #15 on:** January 24, 2007, 03:26:29 PM »

Quote from: Tom Niebuhr on January 24, 2007, 03:39:33 AM

Rob,

No real bias, except that I have always felt the "Nobler" ,although a ground breaker, is Ugly.

Some call the Nobler ugly, but the design allows room for a pilot to sit in it and, in fact, it could be built as a real airplane.

Most of the "beautiful" jet-type stunters would have ended up with a midget pilot sitting inside the engine.

----------------------------
Exactly the same problem as with cars. All the good ones were designed in the "golden age", about 1952 through 1969. After that, wind tunnel testing and the government took over. Now they all look like a worn out bar of soap.

In the "good old days", GM hired REAL ARTISTS to style the cars. Now they use Cad-jockeys. The result is all too obvious. But they do get better MPG.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #16 on:** January 24, 2007, 03:49:20 PM »

Randy, that is one good looking airplane. I too like the elliptical style wings. DOC Holliday

Bob Reeves · « **Reply #17 on:** January 25, 2007, 08:35:02 AM »

Wow, didn't mean to start a controversy or step on anyones toes. I don't particularly like the looks of the Nobler either. If it wasn't for the TF ARF I probably would have never built/flown one.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #18 on:** January 25, 2007, 08:52:20 AM »

As they say, "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". DOC Holliday

Steve Kientz · « **Reply #19 on:** January 25, 2007, 12:01:33 PM »

I see the new designs as tools(very functional)were as clasics have form and function,although maybe not 50/50.

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #20 on:** January 25, 2007, 01:34:07 PM »

I want to stir this up...
My preference would be for the use of originality points in addition to, or in place of appearance points. It would be nice to see more original designs. Stuff like Randys is just to cool not to be rewarded

Steve Kientz · « **Reply #21 on:** January 25, 2007, 01:56:12 PM »

What about "new" designs with character,like the BIG 3 bringing back versions of musclecars.MAYBE someone could happen on a "classic" look that flies as well as the new ships.

RandySmith · « **Reply #22 on:** January 25, 2007, 02:10:59 PM »

Quote from: Steve Kientz on January 25, 2007, 01:56:12 PM

What about "new" designs with character,like the BIG 3 bringing back versions of musclecars.MAYBE someone could happen on a "classic" look that flies as well as the new ships.

You may want to ask Bill Litle about that one...... CLASSIC

Regards
Randy

Bill Little · « **Reply #23 on:** January 25, 2007, 02:51:52 PM »

Quote from: RandySmith on January 25, 2007, 02:10:59 PM

You may want to ask Bill Litle about that one...... CLASSIC

Regards
Randy

A "CLASSIC" comng to a circle near Huntersville, NC soon!

Been hampered by the lack of good wood in my pile or it would already be out there. I was out of suitable wood for the wings, but have it now.

Bill <><

phil c · « **Reply #24 on:** January 25, 2007, 05:26:28 PM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on January 24, 2007, 02:56:16 PM

Oh, I don't know. I like my elliptical plane. I thought it had some character.

It certainly is a pretty "not" Nobler and "not" Impact. Elliptical planes always have a certain pizazz.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #25 on:** January 26, 2007, 12:21:04 PM »

Ty,

It's a lot of things, but a "Big Ares" isn't one of them.

If I ever could have gotten a decent engine run in this airframe, I think it would have done well. Don't be surprised to see a new version of it eventually with a very different engine mount system.

Bill Little · « **Reply #26 on:** January 26, 2007, 12:24:03 PM »

Hmmmm........ I have actually drawn up an Ares XL. It uses all stolen dimensions, aerodynamics, etc., naturally!

Bill <><

RandySmith · « **Reply #27 on:** January 26, 2007, 01:32:15 PM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on January 26, 2007, 12:21:04 PM

Ty,

It's a lot of things, but a "Big Ares" isn't one of them.

If I ever could have gotten a decent engine run in this airframe, I think it would have done well. Don't be surprised to see a new version of it eventually with a very different engine mount system.

Randy

what mount system is in the plan? what motors did you use? vibration or harmonics problem?

Randy

Randy Powell · « **Reply #28 on:** January 26, 2007, 06:30:25 PM »

Hi Randy,

I used a rather solid carbon fiber mount that was cast into the firewall (F-1 and F-2). Made for a very slick mount, but it had a Saito 56 (the best of the bunch) a RO-Jett .65 and a Magnum 53 all installed at different points and none ran very well. I finally figured out that the mount was transmitting too much vibration to the tank and structure. I tried a bunch of things including isolating the tank (foam padding) and putting ArmourAll in the fuel, but contined to get erratic runs. Did all the usual things without much success. I finally just cut the mounts out and intalled a maple crutch ala Al Rabe. (sort of a maple radial mount) and that did it. I finally got predictable and repeatable engine runs on it. Flew well with a Magnum 53 (just the last engine in it) for about 20 flights before stress cracks started showing up in the nose and around the newly installed mount.

When I build another one, it will have a more conventional sort of mounting system. Nice idea that didn't work out nearly as well as I'd hoped.

Randy Powell · « **Reply #29 on:** January 26, 2007, 11:00:29 PM »

Ty,

Of course I have plans.

I suspect that I could cut the nose off, install an entiredly new engine mount system and refinish it... Naw, I'll just build another.