Come over to the dark side

[RC Storick]

  taken form another thread.

As an aside - if you adjust the ratios so that the same amount of lead out movement leads to the same amount of control deflection, you've gained nothing. For the 4 inch bell crank to have an advantage, you have to increase lead out movement, which means a bigger HANDLE SPACING as well (i.e. if you want to keep the same wrist movement angle to control movement relationship).

Iskandar

Either no one knows or just wont admit it that the advent of 4 inch controls and long horns was a trimming tool to over come the sinker in the nose "IE" the 13 oz engine. Stretching out the tail moment is to leaver the weight in the nose. Its like being in the round house. Instead of trying to solve the problem mechanically, designers have engineered a new set of problems into the equation. (thus engineers design it and mechanics make it work)

Kind of like the static hanging airplane from the lead outs. While this looks good to some people there is a lot more going on in the airplane when flying than static gravity. As you leaver out to 4 inches the cam like movement  or eccentric (full up to full down) motion of the bell crank has a 2 foot leaver from lead out guide to point of tether "IE" bell crank pivot (Point of tether or attachment point is bell crank pivot not the LEAD OUT GUIDE as TETHER defined in the dictionary as attachment point). This is what causes some of the hinging / crabbing in modern planes. YES YOU CAN TRIM IT OUT but that does not make it right. Some people use to think the world was flat too.. The lead outs were dropped at the wing tip a 1/8 of a inch as a trimming tool to over come the roll or lateral CG effect. While some had the right idea by the in-line design it set up other problems in our "Sprint Car Trim" that are undesirable.

Flying the airplanes of today is like driving a lowered a 49 Merc while it will get you there I think I would rather drive a GT 40.
 
I think people don't think weight matters as long as wing loading is the same. But its not. A object traveling 55 mph that weighs 60 oz can and will not change direction as fast as a object that weighs 40 oz. Two objects dropped at the same time one weighs a pound and one weighs 5 pounds. which one hits the ground first? They hit at the same time. Now which one would take less to get it to change direction in that fall?  Easy peasy (yeah I know peasy is not a real word) the one pound object.I takes more force or action to get the 60 oz object to do them same thing as the 40oz object, this leads to inconsistency's in the maneuvers. More clock time on the handle. Why does a extremely nose heavy light plane still out perform the large heavy tail heavy plane? (a combat wing is a good example) It takes less force to get it to do a given trick. Now people will say they are not stable.. Not true. Rock solid on the lines, point and shoot any where your reflex's are fast enough to put it. (short nose short tail) Your choice keep believing the world is flat or come to the dark side of reality and join the free thinking. Outside pie R square and realize pi is round.

Things will stay in the 1950's mode until some of the electric boys come out with vectored thrust or variable wing designs that work. Canards have been tried and is the same setup we have now only in reverse. Then with the mind set of people would vectored thrust be accepted? I doubt it! What I am saying as long as we stay with the same layout the airplanes will remain with the same set of rules as we had in the 1950's. The engines are the only thing that are getting better and along with that comes a price "WEIGHT".

Now I will take cover..

I think that a light straight NOBLER with a modern power plant "IE" Tuned pipe set up would out perform anything thats flying today. Would it be accepted? Probably not as it doesn't present as well as a large airplane. Where are the presentation points on the score sheet anyway? I guess people just need new glasses so they can see the smaller airplane.   

As we get older or reflex's get slower "EVERYONE" and did it ever occur to anyone that a truly high performance airplane is beyond your flying ability's? So a airplane that in in proper trim for a 16 year old, might just have to be slowed down for a 60 year old to fly a great pattern. But the airplane in the younger persons hands has lots left in it.
This is like the sport bikes of today. In my younger years I raced 1/2 mile and Speedway. The high powered bikes of today I would not attempt to get everything they have in them out of it. I would be killed as many are. Riding over your head. So I ride a old mans bike now and am happy, but I know there are many bikes that will out preform mine.
 

[Larry Cunningham]

Robert,

I disagree with the premise that if a Nobler with a tuned pipe "outperformed
anything that's flying today", it wouldn't be accepted.

If it WON, it would be accepted.

If you truly believe in your notions, why not simply go out and build and fly that
Nobler you refer to? As soon as you start outperforming everything that's flying
today, not only will it be accepted, but it will be immediately emulated by others
who wish to win in competition.

L.

PS - vectored thrust? why not? again, all that we await is some leader to build
and fly them, and win at the contests. Robert Storick, perhaps?

"Them clothes got laundry numbers on them. You remember your number and
always wear the ones that has your number. Any man forgets his number spends
a night in the box. These here spoons you keep with you. Any man loses his
spoon spends a night in the box. There's no playing grab-ass or fighting in
the building. You got a grudge against another man, you fight him Saturday
afternoon. Any man playing grab-ass or fighting in the building spends a night
in the box. First bell's at five minutes of eight when you will get in your bunk.
Last bell is at eight. Any man not in his bunk at eight spends the night in the
box. There is no smoking in the prone position in bed. To smoke you must
have both legs over the side of your bunk. Any man caught smoking in the
prone position in bed... spends a night in the box. You get two sheets. Every
Saturday, you put the clean sheet on the top... the top sheet on the bottom...
and the bottom sheet you turn in to the laundry boy. Any man turns in the
wrong sheet spends a night in the box. No one'll sit in the bunks with
dirty pants on. Any man with dirty pants on sitting on the bunks spends a
night in the box. Any man don't bring back his empty pop bottle spends a
night in the box. Any man loud talking spends a night in the box. You got
questions, you come to me. I'm Carr, the floor walker. I'm responsible
for order in here. Any man don't keep order spends a night in..."
-Carr, the Floor Walker

[Marvin Denny]

       HMMMM  Why should we "come over to the dark side"   Most of us have already spent much of out modeling lives there, and have since "grown up" and abandoned those "old wives tales".

  There ia a saying that persists in and around the  engineering field that goes something like this.  An engineer can take something that works and "theorize" how or why it works.  Likewise he can take something that doesn't work and "theorize" why it won't work.
  But it takes a "technician" to theorize something and build it and get it to work.  What is the difference between an engineer and a Technician?  About $7000 per year (with the engineer up in money).  But which one had you rather have working for you??
  ME,  I have left the dark side for the fun side od modeling.

  Bigiron 

[FLOYD CARTER]

The difference (in salary) between a tech and an engineer is WAY more than $7K.  Believe me.

Floyd in OR

[billbyles]

Well, Sparky...

I guess that David Fitzgerald, Orestes Hernandez, Paul Walker, Brett Buck, Ted Fancher, et al haven't heard about your theories; they could be doing much better than just winning the Nats year after year and the recent world's.  I look forward to your showing them how.

[RC Storick]

Robert,

I disagree with the premise that if a Nobler with a tuned pipe "outperformed
anything that's flying today", it wouldn't be accepted.

If it WON, it would be accepted.

If you truly believe in your notions, why not simply go out and build and fly that
Nobler you refer to? As soon as you start outperforming everything that's flying
today, not only will it be accepted, but it will be immediately emulated by others
who wish to win in competition.

L.

Well I disagree. Can you tell me where our modern aerodynamics are so much better than the 1950's? aside from being bigger they are the same only bigger.

Edit: Just because a particular plane wins the worlds does not make it the best plane in the world. It was the best plane on that given day with that guy flying it. The Next day it starts all over. Or we would all be flying that airplane or for that fact USA 1's or a number of planes that have won.

[RC Storick]

Well, Sparky...

I guess that David Fitzgerald, Orestes Hernandez, Paul Walker, Brett Buck, Ted Fancher, et al haven't heard about your theories; they could be doing much better than just winning the Nats year after year and the recent world's.  I look forward to your showing them how.

Well lets see are those planes heavy? Orestes weighs what? Who has won more NATS wins I think that with a record of 5 NATS wins and a world Bob G. is doing fair and Billy with 2 worlds and how many NATS wins. Jim Cassel , Bob Hunt and many others do fair with light airplanes. Some people have natural tallent and then some people can just fly toilet seats and make it look good.

And too can I show them Who knows but it still don't make it right! I have only been back sense 04 but that doesn't mean I cant see. Some people just follow along. Just because big airplanes are winning at this time doesn't make it right does it? Hurry up computerized tracking!

I have been told by other Big name light builders I am wasting my time. But I still like to do what I do. Everyone does as they wish. If you stick with something long enough even if its wrong (like heavy airplanes) its get accepted.

[john e. holliday]

Now count how many VSC's Billy has won with light planes.  Mr Meriwether of the old Flying Eagles MAC of KCK told me when I was starting.  "Build light and straight, worry about finish later".  Stick to your guns Sparky.  Have fun,  DOC Holliday

[Randy Powell]

Don't listen to them, Robert. Do it your way. I think this boils down to there is more than one way to skin a cat. I can't see any reason why your approach won't work. That's not to say that other approaches don't also work.

(I think Paul has what, 11 national wins? 12?)

[RC Storick]

Don't listen to them, Robert. Do it your way. I think this boils down to there is more than one way to skin a cat. I can't see any reason why your approach won't work. That's not to say that other approaches don't also work.

(I think Paul has what, 11 national wins? 12?)

Paul is a excellent flier no doubt. That takes practice and with that practice you can learn to extract all you can out of your given model but does the plane really fly as well or is it all pilot? I think some are missing that aspect.

One thing I have noticed sense being back the people on the west cost think differently than Midwest fliers. I am not sure but I think it has to do with air density and humidity. If I we able to travel all over the country to different meets I am sure I would notice more of what I speak of.

Would fighting Mahmud Alli now and wining be a accomplishment? Don't think so.

[billbyles]

Well lets see are those planes heavy? Orestes weighs what? Who has won more NATS wins I think that with a record of 5 NATS wins and a world Bob G. is doing fair and Billy with 2 worlds and how many NATS wins is doing fair with light airplanes. Some people have natural tallent and then some people can just fly toilet seats and make it look good.

And to can I show them Who knows but it still don't make it right! I have only been back sense 04 but that doesn't mean I cant see. Some people just follow along. Just because big airplanes are winning at this time doesn't make it right does it? Hurry up computerized tracking!

I have been told by other Big name light builders I am wasting my time. But I still like to do what I do. Everyone does as they wish. If you stick with something long enough even if its wrong (like heavy airplanes) its get accepted.

Well, I believe that David's "Thunder Gazer" weighs in the neighborhood of 62 ounces with about 630 some squares, and if I remember correctly Brett's Infinity weighs around the same, not sure about Orestes' airplane but I think it is in that neighborhood, Paul Walker likes his airplanes about 62 1/2 ounces.  They are also using slow controls with 4" bellcranks and tall flap & elevator horns.  Technology moves on and changes, however slowly.

Setups that are winning tend to be the ones that are accepted.  But, as long as you are having fun then I'd say you are on the right track. 

[RC Storick]

Well, I believe that David's "Thunder Gazer" weighs in the neighborhood of 62 ounces with about 630 some squares, and if I remember correctly Brett's Infinity weighs around the same, not sure about Orestes' airplane but I think it is in that neighborhood, Paul Walker likes his airplanes about 62 1/2 ounces.  They are also using slow controls with 4" bellcranks and tall flap & elevator horns.  Technology moves on and changes, however slowly.

Setups that are winning tend to be the ones that are accepted.  But, as long as you are having fun then I'd say you are on the right track. 

Thanks. 

[RC Storick]

The difference (in salary) between a tech and an engineer is WAY more than $7K.  Believe me.
Floyd in OR

Yeah the people sure have things mixed up. Ever notice how they guy who does the most work gets paid the least. Of coarse as a PHD HD tech I do fair. But I think I had more spendable money when I made a $1.35 a HR.

[Eric Viglione]

OK, I'm taking the bait...

Robert - I don't think as many people disagree with you in total as it seems, just in the amount of emphasis you are putting on the weight equation.

Most of us (like me) barely can have time to crank out a pitiful ONE good stunt ship per year. OF COURSE we TRY to build lighter and straighter (without sacrificing structural integrity) than the previous model we built. BUT... we gotta dance with the one we brung, and what many are pointing out is that even a marginally heavy plane CAN be trimmed and flown to win at the highest levels, (and have regularly!)

The other point that may be debatable is whether or not a person is better off cranking out ship after ship in search of Nirvana, or taking his half decent, average weight ship and learning to trim and fly it to it's max capability.

Personally, I think getting overly obsessed with constantly changing your program and looking for better and better equipment is a huge side track that will distract the average competitor from reaching his final goal, winning contests. Not everyone has that kind of time to devote to this stuff. If your object is to come up with the best flying plane in the world, that's another story... but the cut and try method could take a life time.

Bottom line is, for those of us with limited time, we can't afford the luxury of much experimentation. When I came back to competition, I got off the beaten path trying a few things... where I finally decided to go back to proven designs and power trains, and let someone else take the lumps with trying new & different approaches.

I think you enjoy building, and turning out super cool looking ships that you can be proud of and are constantly looking for something "more". Not a darn thing wrong with that and I think it's great. My only problem is when you insinuate everyone who doesn't agree with your ideas is a member of the flat earth society and won't even consider for a moment other peoples points of view, or at least tactfully agree to disagree.

Oh - And as long as we are stirring the pot,    if you are after the ultimate stunt ship with the least barbell effect, and lightest possible ship, maybe you should consider building a Twin engine FP20 stunter with counter rotating props (No G/P, which puts the engine weight right near the C/G) flying wing? (no big engine up front, no long nose, so no long tail moment needed to off-set it) Best yet, you can put the B/C wherever the heck you want, it's a flying wing! The fuel tank will be right near the C/G too, so it will be constant C/G throughout the flight. Push rod flex? Fuggetabout it! Heck, you only have a short one to worry about, that'll save weight too! Make it about 610 squares, and keep it under 40 ounces. Have fun and let me know how it flies. If it's too sporty for ya, you could always put a streamer on it and use it for combat. 
EricV

[Shultzie]

Well, I believe that David's "Thunder Gazer" weighs in the neighborhood of 62 ounces with about 630 some squares, and if I remember correctly Brett's Infinity weighs around the same, not sure about Orestes' airplane but I think it is in that neighborhood, Paul Walker likes his airplanes about 62 1/2 ounces.  They are also using slow controls with 4" bellcranks and tall flap & elevator horns.  Technology moves on and changes, however slowly.

Setups that are winning tend to be the ones that are accepted.  But, as long as you are having fun then I'd say you are on the right track. 

I couldn't help myself...Dave's THUNDER GAZER is truly somethin to gaze about?

[RC Storick]

Well Eric when I came back in 04 I went to the worlds and watched all the planes. Almost everyone was flying large airplanes. I watched them closely and thought Billy's performed the best. So I set out and built 3 to try to make mine work. I took many pictures and measurements. This was before plans if you remember. One important question I forgot ask is how much a puppy weigh? His is 53 oz. Mine are mid 60tys and the best looking one is closer to 70.

Billy is the King of Light. He has the best stuff available to him. I can not duplicate the weight. Not sure if I could do it in MONOKOTE and match the weight. So I proceeded to build other large airframes to try to get the weight around the same wing and numbers. S6B, Continental, SV100, SV 22  are all around the same numbers that I can't make work for me. Its almost like if you have 62 inch span you will have a 62 OZ plane or more. I know this is not true but its kinda funny to me.

 In the interim I built 2 vipers before this last one. Viper 6 has 10 flights on it. I had made a mistake in construction that with out major surgery would be too time consuming. One of those Vipers got sold before flying as I just could not bring myself to fly a MONOKOTE airplane.

The other point that may be debatable is whether or not a person is better off cranking out ship after ship in search of Nirvana, or taking his half decent, average weight ship and learning to trim and fly it to it's max capability.

Personally, I think getting overly obsessed with constantly changing your program and looking for better and better equipment is a huge side track that will distract the average competitor from reaching his final goal, winning contests. Not everyone has that kind of time to devote to this stuff. If your object is to come up with the best flying plane in the world, that's another story... but the cut and try method could take a life time.

The Viper is a airplane I used in early 90tys.

I have a SV 11 I sold before painting. Mater of fact I have my SV 100 for sale. It has 10 flights on it. Set up for PA.75 One day I just got to thinking (the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results), self I can't make these work why are you doing it again? Yeah I can win locally with them but is that my goal?

 So the New Viper was built. After flying I know I had come to find what I was seeking. All the time in the world with my current planes with all the practice will not get me any farther than I have come. So this is why the drastic change in direction.

If some people take offense its not meant and to think you are a flat lander or anything like that. Its my humor. and it is funny! Besides it gets people on high C.. and a lot of play.

[RC Storick]

I couldn't help myself...Dave's THUNDER GAZER is truly somethin to gaze about?

Nice airplane.

[Bradley Walker]

Personally, I think getting overly obsessed with constantly changing your program and looking for better and better equipment is a huge side track that will distract the average competitor from reaching his final goal, winning contests.

Yes!!!  Trust me!!!

[Wynn Robins]

well - I agree with with you Mr Storick - after all - I was once told that we are reallyy flying the engine around a particular path in the sky - the airplane is really only there to connect to engine to us.

the lighter the airframe, and easier it is to change the engines direction - the easier it is to follow that path in flight...


just to simplify things 

[Howard Rush]

The lighter the airplane, the easier it is for anything to change the engine's direction.

[Matt Colan]

I couldn't help myself...Dave's THUNDER GAZER is truly somethin to gaze about?

That paint scheme is one of my favorites, as well as the plane.  I have to use it sometime

[RC Storick]

The lighter the airplane, the easier it is for anything to change the engine's direction.

Be careful Howard you are stepping into the dark side.. 

[Alan Hahn]

Why am I becoming nostalgic for BOM threads? 

[Howard Rush]

"Paul is a excellent flier no doubt. That takes practice and with that practice you can learn to extract all you can out of your given model but does the plane really fly as well or is it all pilot? I think some are missing that aspect."

So, Mr. Smartypants, have you done an experiment to determine how much is airplane and how much is pilot?  Well, I have.  With actual Nats judges judging, I fell on my butt backing up just after my engine quit.  My airplane, a Paul Walker Impact, to which you allude above, landed itself without pilot participation.  The landing received 11 points.  When I land it, I get about three times that score.  Therefore, it's one third airplane and two thirds pilot.   

[RC Storick]

Nice try Howard but this has nothing to do with what I am speaking about. Here is what I speak of. On any given day a pilot wins. Paul can no doubt beat me with a ringmaster. Does that mean my plane is no good? Or perhaps I don't have enough flight time on it or my skills will never be what it takes. Does that mean my airplane doesn't out perform a ringmaster? I am using my plane as a example, I could be flying a borrowed world beater or what ever. Does that mean that the world beater is no good? No it means I am no good.

A plane wins only in the moment. Just because it wins doesn't make it the best flying airplane it makes it the best that day with that pilot. Next day is a new story.

You know what I re read your post and it is what I mean. Just think of the score you would have got if the plane could have landed its self.. You reiterated my point some people can fly anything.

[Dan McEntee]

 
    Well, I'll throw my 2 cents worth in on this one! And I'll even use a bit of sprint car analysis like you have mentioned. Perhaps the best sprint car driver I ever saw was Jan Opperman. It was often said of Mr. Opperman, "He can take hisn and yourn, and then he can take yourn and beat hisn!" I saw him do this on one occasion where he took a USAC legal non winged sprint car and put a whoopin' on some true outlaw cars at that time, giving up a great advantage in weight and horsepower. He just didn't sit in the cockpit and go along for the ride, he could DRIVE!
   Bart Kaplinski has probably come the closest I have ever seen to doing this with a stunt model. I think if it's got lines and a handle, Bart could put in a 500 point flight with it the first time he flew it! I imagine there are many others that can do this. This is a level I have always wanted to get to
   Master Po always said, "Life must have balance, Grasshopper!" I just try to build reasonably light models that are durable, install a durable and reliable power plant, fly them as much as I can and strive for consistency. Some days I get the bear, and some days he gets me!
    Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee
   

[Howard Rush]

Probably not The bear.

[Randy Powell]

Seems to me that if you have a plane that is within the weight envelope of the design, you have a powerplant that has good, reliable power and is able to pull that payload with some juice to spare, the plane is straight and with enough structural rigidity to withstand the g-forces, stress and wind/turbulence and is well trimmed, then it's mostly on the pilot to do a decent job of steering the thing. My experience is, most pilots (me included) are fighting one or another of the above areas. When we manage to build a plane that has all of the above, we suddenly improve our scores substantially. Go figure.

[Bob Reeves]

Once again Randy has nailed it... It's really hard to practice flying a good pattern if your thinking or worried about your engine or airplane trim.

[Jim Pollock]

DARK SIDE?

Now Robert,  I thought you have been recommending building on the LIGHTER SIDE!!!!   

Some of the tricks I used to get my 54" Span 10.25" Chord  Pegasus down low enough to use a Veco .19
were using 1/16" sides with 1/32" doublers and no formers in the fuselage, (it was suppose to be
that way anyway.)  3/32" bottom fuselage sheeting instead of 1/4" and 3/8" square motor mounts.  Also, I
reduced the Stab and Elevators from soft 1/2" to medium 3/'16".The plane weighed 30 ounces and flew good enough for me to slop up a number of class "A" Stunt trophies in WAM.

Jim Pollock    

[Ted Fancher]

Be careful Howard you are stepping into the dark side.. 

Careful, Sparky.  I think you might have misinterpreted again.

Ted

[Larry Cunningham]

One of the cool things about CL Stunt is that it is wide open to experimentation,
whether or not people actually do so. There are rules to obey, of course,
but in my view they don't constrain design and experimentation that much.

Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. I'll be
among the first to congratulate your success (and copy your work).

L.

"CRITIC, n: One who boasts of being "hard to please" because nobody
tries to please him." -Ambrose Bierce

[Doug Moon]

Sparky,

There has been alot of talk about all kinds of stuff over the past few days on these threads that is for sure.

You mentioned in another thread you are trying to do something new.

What exactly is that?

Building a light weight plane with a larger motor?

Please bring it back to full circle.  I am trying to follow what it is you are doing that is new.  Like you, I do look for new things in stunt design.  Hard to find, but I look for it.

Thanks in advance.

Doug

[RC Storick]

Trying new things was about computer tracking. That has not been done YET. But I think its in the near future. New for me is a plane of yesterdays weight with todays power. Will it work out for me thats still to be seen. I will never change my mind on light planes. I know what its suppose to look like, at the end of the summer I can get pretty close after a few cases of fuel. Last year I did better but it was ideal conditions which will not likely happen again in a while, but who knows. I am taking no chances this year."I am doing what I know to be right for me" to try to make the cut.