Author Topic: Designs, "new" planes etc. (Read 14238 times)

Randy Powell · « **Reply #50 on:** October 19, 2009, 04:24:51 PM »

Randy,

Of course conditions that effect the plane, effect the plane. But the electric motor runs the same, flight after flight. That isnt' always true with an IC engine. I watched Paul fly at a contest a few weeks ago. The wind picked up to hurricane levels. He was blown around as much as anyone (though the motor continued to pull it out of bad situations). Obviously, aerodynamic issues pertain regardless of power train.

Sure, you can get a bad battery. You can get bad fuel too. The latter is more likely, but it pertains.

I'm not advocating electrics (though many do). I like IC power and apart from the inability to fly at the local school that would not be a problem with an electric motor, there isn't really any reason I can think of to change. Part of it is, I have the hard won knowledge of how to get my IC engines to work in various conditions. I know what props to go to, what adjustments to make when the air gets thin or thick or when the wind blows. I'm comfortable with what I have and can make it perform. I think it's easier with an electric setup, but both work pretty well. Certainly, Paul has proven to me that electrics can be a superior setup. But I'll probably stick with what I know. It works quite well.

And beside, I would miss the vroom.

proparc · « **Reply #51 on:** October 19, 2009, 06:09:35 PM »

Quote from: Alan Hahn on October 19, 2009, 04:02:29 PM

Do you have any actual measured lap times? There is no reason for an electric powered plane to fly faster than the glow version.

"Do you have any actual measured lap times?"
Hey Bro, I was watching a video!!! LOL

"There is no reason for an electric powered plane to fly faster than the glow version."
Your dead right!! So whats up!!

Moreover, in watching the YS powered F3A ships up against the Plettenburg,(or similar setups) I can't tell the difference in speed. In fact, I can't tell the difference in anything!

Alan Hahn · « **Reply #52 on:** October 19, 2009, 06:45:39 PM »

Quote from: proparc on October 19, 2009, 06:09:35 PM

"Do you have any actual measured lap times?"
Hey Bro, I was watching a video!!! LOL

"There is no reason for an electric powered plane to fly faster than the glow version."
Your dead right!! So whats up!!

Moreover, in watching the YS powered F3A ships up against the Plettenburg,(or similar setups) I can't tell the difference in speed. In fact, I can't tell the difference in anything!

Well you obviously thought they were flying faster and said so. So really nothing substantiated. Just an impression. Could be the (lack of) sound.

proparc · « **Reply #53 on:** October 19, 2009, 06:59:12 PM »

Quote from: Alan Hahn on October 19, 2009, 06:45:39 PM

Well you obviously thought they were flying faster and said so. So really nothing substantiated. Just an impression. Could be the (lack of) sound.

I personally thought and still do that they were flying noticeably faster. That is, MUCH faster. While there could have been some perception shinanagings, I have been around long enough not to worry about that. Moreover, I usually can call the difference in lap times fairly accurately before I here the actual time. When I am on really on it, it is usually VERY CLOSE. Generally, when I think a stunt flight is faster, it usually is!!!

Alan Hahn · « **Reply #54 on:** October 19, 2009, 07:03:08 PM »

I note that in those European World Cup champs, that electric came in 2nd and 3rd, so those judges weren't too puzzled by the electrics. I also note the 3rd place finisher in that contest, Igor Burger came in second at last year's Worlds Champs behind Dave Fitzgerald. He was flying the same electric plane.

So I doubt that electric power is holding these guys back.

So the point is that electric is already up to par with the best in glow, and it is up to the pilot to go the rest of the way. So glow certainly isn't obsolete but there is certainly a new motor in town!

isn't going to change reality.

Derek Barry · « **Reply #55 on:** October 20, 2009, 08:16:41 AM »

I have checked lap times on electrics and ALL of them were under 4.9 (some as fast as 4.5) lap times. Dave F. was flying 5.5 to 5.6 lap times all week at the NATS. That is a big difference to me. On the other hand ALL of the Sharks (with IC motors) fly very fast lap times too, in the same range as the electrics. This is a sign of low hp or a heavy plane or both.

Larry Cunningham · « **Reply #56 on:** October 20, 2009, 11:35:34 AM »

OK, there's a good reason for electric power's consistency. These are not simple DC motors, but are synchronous (AC, virtually) motors. Their RPM is precisely determined by their driver (ESC) whose phased pulses control its rotation. Unless the motor is lugged to the point to where it is "slipping poles", it runs the programmed speed. Insufficient current from the battery could slip poles as well, since torque is directly related to current. However, that is not a normal operating mode.

I'll readily criticize electric power for its initial cost, limited battery life, battery charging/changing hassles, perhaps even likelihood of crash damage. But motors do RUN consistently, it's their nature. Electric powered ships are indeed affected by wind; some may be easier to fly in wind, assuming motor run consistency is useful there. Who might know better than serious competitors?

Look for further improvements in battery technology soon (say "wonderful but even more expensive"), as well as ESC capabilities (say "sensor inputs"). We'll know electric power has truly arrived when someone gets the bright idea that it really needs to compete in its own "class".

If I were in the business of selling and reworking IC engines, I doubt that I would have much praise for a competing technology like electric power. That said, I wouldn't count IC nor electric power out for our model airplanes, at least not in our foreseeable lives.

I like the smell of nitro and castor (and that coconut flavor from Arizona) in alcohol fuel. If electric could add a speaker and a mister to simulate the IC sound and smell.. (Hmm. I believe I can make an ESC that would have outputs for that. But first I need the little DSP module looking at 3-axis G forces, motor current, air and battery temperatures, FET (flight elapsed time), and sixteen user adjustable digital parameters that will control how the motor drive behaves.)

Wouldn't you agree that getting power systems sorted out has always been a major challenge of CL Stunt?

L.

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." -Albert Einstein

Randy Powell · « **Reply #57 on:** October 20, 2009, 01:58:51 PM »

Larry,

Well, that was really my point. Electric certainly has things to recommend it (and also things to dis-recommend it). I don't know that it's yet superior to IC, but I think it can be equal.

RandySmith · « **Reply #58 on:** October 20, 2009, 02:43:28 PM »

"If I were in the business of selling and reworking IC engines, I doubt that I would have much praise for a competing technology like electric power. That said, I wouldn't count IC nor electric power out for our model airplanes, at least not in our foreseeable lives. "

Hi Larry

Since I am sure that was aimed at me, I will respond, never did I say I counted out Elec. power, As for not praising competing power I could care less what people use as long as they are happy with it.
I sell both IC and Elec. power plants, I have both systems here in my personal planes,and as Always my philosophy is run whatever you want, and what makes you happy.
Just don't knock other equipment by saying stuff like it is superior, Much better, more consistant, easier to setup, cheaper, runs perfect all the time, is NOT affected by weather winds..etc.
I have heard this all before many times.
As I stated in my first post about this you can have trouble with "any" power system be it IC or Electric.
Or you can have a complete trouble free system that woks for years on end with either, but nothing is trouble free or eliminates the worry of anything going wrong or having to make adjustments
I have flown several Electric setups, even what I considered to be the very best electric setup out there, I have also flown world class IC setups , both are very viable ,and will compete for many many years to come with each other

Regards
Randy

Dennis Adamisin · « **Reply #59 on:** October 20, 2009, 02:58:20 PM »

Quote from: Derek Barry on October 20, 2009, 08:16:41 AM

I have checked lap times on electrics and ALL of them were under 4.9 (some as fast as 4.5) lap times.

Well, ya haven't seen ALL of them.

All seriousness aside, electrics will fly as fast or as slow as you want - Pilot's choice - just like IC. While I am sold on electrics for my stuff, I expect that good dependable IC power will continue in use. In fact, I hope ALL my competitors fly IC!

Alan Hahn · « **Reply #60 on:** October 20, 2009, 03:17:38 PM »

Quote from: Derek Barry on October 20, 2009, 08:16:41 AM

I have checked lap times on electrics and ALL of them were under 4.9 (some as fast as 4.5) lap times. Dave F. was flying 5.5 to 5.6 lap times all week at the NATS. That is a big difference to me. On the other hand ALL of the Sharks (with IC motors) fly very fast lap times too, in the same range as the electrics. This is a sign of low hp or a heavy plane or both.

If you turn the same prop at the same rpm and lap speed and same line length (I hope I have included all the possible variables now!), and don't lose rpm in the vertical, you are making the same horsepower.

There isn't anything fundamental going on here.

Howard Rush · « **Reply #61 on:** October 20, 2009, 04:34:14 PM »

Not losing RPM in the vertical is an unnecessary condition.

Alan Hahn · « **Reply #62 on:** October 20, 2009, 07:53:45 PM »

Quote from: Howard Rush on October 20, 2009, 04:34:14 PM

Not losing RPM in the vertical is an unnecessary condition.

I know, I just thought I add that in as a plus for electric.

Larry Cunningham · « **Reply #63 on:** October 20, 2009, 08:09:57 PM »

Howard,

I thought your call outs for specific goals to improve stunt were particularly good.

Picking one feature, improving flying in the wind, I realize how I haven't a clue about what is needed. Assuming, for the moment, a flying model could somehow "sense" certain windy conditions, how might it adjust itself (power, of course, but not necessarily limited to that) to help it fly better?

How do you characterize the problem in any decent manner? Speed up when flying up wind, and slow down when flying down wind? Somehow I doubt that is the complete answer.

A stunt flier easily knows when he's flying in windy conditions, but how does a model? Since there is no practical, accurate position tracking system anywhere in sight, what is even feasible? I can't really define inputs and outputs, let alone a control function to connect them.

(Say.. perhaps have the model "trim" itself, aerodynamically during windy conditions? Adjust a screw to move a weight in the fuselage and adjust CG for extra sensitivity?)

I doubt that we'll ever see a self trimming stunt ship, nor would it be desirable. Fun to think about, interesting problems to solve, likely useless. The quality of a stunt pattern ultimately depends on the skill of the pilot; a certain level of equipment quality is assumed.

L.

PS - Randy, I certainly didn't mean to slight you or your opinions in any manner. But I do remember getting thoroughly ripped apart years ago when I repeated Bill Melton's observation that "any good stunt ship has poor line tension at times" - all sorts of decrees about piped engines NEVER experiencing decreases in line tension, EVER, and WTF could I possibly know about it, etc. Amazing just how emotional it all got. I've always wanted to install an accelerometer to actually record line tension, to OBSERVE this phenomena of uniform line tension, specifically due to power plant.

Remember the pugnacity of "discussions" that ushered in the piped engine era? For that matter, how many fist fights have nearly erupted when someone expressed disdain for the venerable Fox .35 Stunt motor? We all have our opinions, which are CORRECT!

I sense just a tad of defensiveness from the anti-electric crowd, a similar conviction that IC power is absolutely superior in every way, having achieved perfection including consistency. Just my general, unqualified opinion, but I think electric power perhaps has already achieved the performance level of the best IC setups. And electric is just getting started.

We both share the conviction that we want everyone to run what they are happy with. I pray we'll always have options.

Best regards.

"If you don't want to work, you have to work to earn enough money so that you won't have to work" -Ogden Nash

RandySmith · « **Reply #64 on:** October 20, 2009, 09:00:42 PM »

"PS - Randy, I certainly didn't mean to slight you or your opinions in any manner. But I do remember getting thoroughly ripped apart years ago when I repeated Bill Melton's observation that "any good stunt ship has poor line tension at times" - all sorts of decrees about piped engines NEVER experiencing decreases in line tension, EVER, and WTF could I possibly know about it, etc. Amazing just how emotional it all got. I've always wanted to install an accelerometer to actually record line tension, to OBSERVE this phenomena of uniform line tension, specifically due to power plant"

Larry

Your post was very clear insinuating something that was not, and your post clearly was directed at me, and if by chance some people think you are insinuating I was the one who ripped you apart ... I will say that you never got ripped apart by me about your opinions, on anything.
As far as I am concerned people are free to have them, doesn't really bother me at all.
I also never said WTF do you know...none of that came from me so I fail to see any relevance in posting to me about something I was not part of. And if you believe that electrics are rubber power is the state of the art, more power to you.
I remember things a little differant than you stated though, The post didn't say they NEVER has any loss of tension, what the detractors where saying was that pipe setups had no line tension above 45 degrees, that was what more than a few people chose to have an online war about. Which in a word was ridiculous.
I speak with sometimes 30 people a day and stunt flyers are having a incredible good time building and flying electric and IC world beaters, that seems to be the point, this is after all a hobby, your supposed to enjoy it, Im happy to see anyone get pleasure from building and flying whatever that want to build.
Randy

Howard Rush · « **Reply #65 on:** October 20, 2009, 09:36:18 PM »

Quote from: Larry Cunningham on October 20, 2009, 08:09:57 PM

Howard,

I thought your call outs for specific goals to improve stunt were particularly good.

Picking one feature, improving flying in the wind, I realize how I haven't a clue about what is needed. Assuming, for the moment, a flying model could somehow "sense" certain windy conditions, how might it adjust itself (power, of course, but not necessarily limited to that) to help it fly better?

How do you characterize the problem in any decent manner? Speed up when flying up wind, and slow down when flying down wind? Somehow I doubt that is the complete answer.

A stunt flier easily knows when he's flying in windy conditions, but how does a model? Since there is no practical, accurate position tracking system anywhere in sight, what is even feasible? I can't really define inputs and outputs, let alone a control function to connect them.

(Say.. perhaps have the model "trim" itself, aerodynamically during windy conditions? Adjust a screw to move a weight in the fuselage and adjust CG for extra sensitivity?)

I doubt that we'll ever see a self trimming stunt ship, nor would it be desirable. Fun to think about, interesting problems to solve, likely useless. The quality of a stunt pattern ultimately depends on the skill of the pilot; a certain level of equipment quality is assumed.

Looks like you are contemplating a system that speeds the airplane up going upwind and slows it down going downwind. Igor has done this. As for sensitivity to maneuver placement relative to the wind and to turbulence, you ought to be able to do a lot just with the shape of the airplane. See NACA Report 1098, http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1952/naca-report-1098.pdf .

Derek Barry · « **Reply #66 on:** October 21, 2009, 06:45:13 AM »

"If you turn the same prop at the same rpm and lap speed and same line length (I hope I have included all the possible variables now!), and don't lose rpm in the vertical, you are making the same horsepower.

There isn't anything fundamental going on here."

I am just stating MY CASUAL observations, nothing else. I do not think that electrics are the way for me to go and was voicing some of my opinions. That was my mistake.

Larry Cunningham · « **Reply #67 on:** October 21, 2009, 08:06:36 AM »

Howard,

Agreed, the first approach toward better flight characteristics is to adjust our model aerodynamics. Thanks for the link.

I remember an electric power system with speed modulated by a rate output from a helicopter gyro, there was a video of it flying in a gymnasium. I thought that was Igor's. Also I remember discussion of mechanical weight/lever systems mounted on the engine, to regulate throttle based on centripetal force (line tension).

I'm not anticipating any major development in autonomous RPM controls. But ESCs with "2/4 simulator" modes are probably coming.

L.

"When you get to the fork in the road, take it." -Yogi Berra

Larry Cunningham · « **Reply #68 on:** October 21, 2009, 08:27:23 AM »

Randy,

Please do not read things into places where they aren't. No one said YOU made simplistic and silly decrees about line tension in piped ships. Others did, however, and my point was that some people tend to get testy and hurt when discussing model airplane power systems (actually, when discussing ANY CHANGE in the world of CL Stunt).

No offense was ever intended to Randy Smith.

I'll try to separate better with paragraphs in the future.

Best,

L.

"The course of true anything does not run smooth." -Samuel Butler

Larry Cunningham · « **Reply #69 on:** October 21, 2009, 08:31:20 AM »

Quote from: Derek Barry on October 21, 2009, 06:45:13 AM

"If you turn the same prop at the same rpm and lap speed and same line length (I hope I have included all the possible variables now!), and don't lose rpm in the vertical, you are making the same horsepower.

There isn't anything fundamental going on here."

I am just stating MY CASUAL observations, nothing else. I do not think that electrics are the way for me to go and was voicing some of my opinions. That was my mistake.

See? Feelers are getting hurt.

It's not really possible to "discuss" model airplane power systems without this eventually occurring.

L.

"We live in a rainbow of chaos." - Paul Cezanne

Larry Cunningham · « **Reply #70 on:** October 21, 2009, 08:46:54 AM »

But Howard,

There's worms in that report. And pitchforks..

L.

"Youth is a blunder; Manhood a struggle; Old Age a regret." -Benjamin Disraeli

RandySmith · « **Reply #71 on:** October 21, 2009, 10:08:49 AM »

Quote from: Larry Cunningham on October 21, 2009, 08:27:23 AM

Randy,

Please do not read things into places where they aren't. No one said YOU made simplistic and silly decrees about line tension in piped ships. Others did, however, and my point was that some people tend to get testy and hurt when discussing model airplane power systems (actually, when discussing ANY CHANGE in the world of CL Stunt).

No offense was ever intended to Randy Smith.

I'll try to separate better with paragraphs in the future.

Best,

L.

"The course of true anything does not run smooth." -Samuel Butler

Hi Larry

Your post insinuated that , Clarity was why I made the post to start with, that is the reason I said........
"if" by chance some people think you are insinuating I was the one who ripped you apart ... I will say that you never got ripped apart by me about your opinions, on anything.

I am not mad or even annoyed by your post, I just want to keep perfectly clear what "others" said ,and what I said.

Randy

Larry Cunningham · « **Reply #72 on:** October 21, 2009, 12:36:12 PM »

Randy,

For perfect clarity here: Randy Smith never said anything to rip me apart, publicly or privately.

It was poor judgement on my part to mention that incident at all.

I seem to have an increasing number of "poor judgements" nowadays.

L.

"'Tis a sharp medicine, but it will cure all that ails you." -Sir Walter Raleigh just prior to his beheading

John Ashford · « **Reply #73 on:** October 21, 2009, 03:03:55 PM »

Hey guys,

I love you all but haven't we sort of gotten away ( as often happens) from the original question? If one wants to discuss the pros/cons of electric vs. IC, why not start a new thread? I also believe that personal relationships and differences should absolutely not be discussed on this or any other forum.

Later, John

Randy Powell · « **Reply #74 on:** October 21, 2009, 03:21:46 PM »

John,

Good point. The question I thought you were asking was, is there anything really new in design since the Nobler. The answer is probably not in function, but perhaps in application.

RandySmith · « **Reply #75 on:** October 21, 2009, 04:06:23 PM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on October 21, 2009, 03:21:46 PM

John,

Good point. The question I thought you were asking was, is there anything really new in design since the Nobler. The answer is probably not in function, but perhaps in application.

Yes there has been a lot new since the Nobler , airfoils for one thing that are not and do not conform to the Nobler
There have been several , Also design numbers , there have been many planes with aspect ratios moments percentages that are not Noblers. Juts look at Denny's Orange plane, very unique stuntship .Of course you will always have some that say everything is a Nobler

Regards
Randy

PerttiMe · « **Reply #76 on:** October 22, 2009, 12:55:51 AM »

I am new here but I detect all sorts of ideas about applying "the numbers".

- big planes with big engines
- small planes with big engines
- big and small planes with small engines running harder
- planes with big fuselages, big engines and small wings

- I wouldnt be surprised if the "big engine chugging along" vs. "small engine that does part of the pattern at full tilt" thing applies to electrics to some extent too. Electric motors get less efficient when pulling their max currents, not to speak about batteries when they are under strain.

- foam wings (is it just to reduce the number of parts you need to glue together?)
- molded fiberglass/carbon structures (should be good for mass production, maybe less so if you want to design a one-off with your own look)
...... what happened to this one anyway: http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=9263.0

- not everybody seems to agree on how to cover a plane either

Randy Powell · « **Reply #77 on:** October 22, 2009, 01:59:57 PM »

Randy,

Well, I agree. But it depends on how you see different. To me, changes in moment arms, aspect ratio, airfoil, area and a myriad of other details end up making a big difference in the final product and certainly constitute substantial design changes. For others, the wing, stab, fuse and tail are still in relatively the same position so it's the same as a Nobler. Depends on how you are looking at it, I suppose.

As a side note, I've seen a few planes that are made to look very much (if not exactly) like a Nobler but are radically different aerodynamically. Are they the same as a Nobler?

RandySmith · « **Reply #78 on:** October 22, 2009, 02:27:21 PM »

"For others, the wing, stab, fuse and tail are still in relatively the same position so it's the same as a Nobler. Depends on how you are looking at it, I suppose. "

I guess I would need to point out that The Nobler was not the first to have the wings and stab in the same relative position, maybe 100s of others were ..before.. the Nobler, so if that is the criteria I would think the Nobler would need to be tossed in favor of the first design that had the same.

There are still reall many many NEW items in Stunt design that have been put into play after the Nobler was born
Look at Scott Bair's StuntFire, a radical departure from Nobler type thinking, in construction and design, and the Airfoil is not even close to a Nobler.
When else have you seen a 65 inch span plane of 700 sq In and over with a huge scale like body, 3 inch metal spinner, 3 inch plus tires ,18 inch plus tail moment and a 16 inch prop turned by a 65 come in at 43 ounces

Regards
Randy

proparc · « **Reply #79 on:** October 22, 2009, 04:48:08 PM »

quote author=RandySmith

There are still reall many many NEW items in Stunt design that have been put into play after the Nobler was born
Look at Scott Bair's StuntFire, a radical departure from Nobler type thinking, in construction and design, and the Airfoil is not even close to a Nobler. When else have you seen a 65 inch span plane of 700 sq In and over with a huge scale like body, 3 inch metal spinner, 3 inch plus tires ,18 inch plus tail moment and a 16 inch prop turned by a 65 come in at 43 ounces

Regards
Randy

For crying out loud-you guys have got to post some pics of these non-Nobler planes. I am going bananas trying to imagine what these things look like.

RandySmith · « **Reply #80 on:** October 22, 2009, 07:53:37 PM »

Quote from: proparc on October 22, 2009, 04:48:08 PM

quote author=RandySmith

There are still reall many many NEW items in Stunt design that have been put into play after the Nobler was born
Look at Scott Bair's StuntFire, a radical departure from Nobler type thinking, in construction and design, and the Airfoil is not even close to a Nobler. When else have you seen a 65 inch span plane of 700 sq In and over with a huge scale like body, 3 inch metal spinner, 3 inch plus tires ,18 inch plus tail moment and a 16 inch prop turned by a 65 come in at 43 ounces

Regards
Randy

For crying out loud-you guys have got to post some pics of these non-Nobler planes. I am going bananas trying to imagine what these things look like.

Hi Milton

This is one of them, there are several, plus a Mustang version in a slighlty smaller size and another that is 67 inch span

The picture shown is one of the FAT body Stuntfires, 3 1/2 inch spinner , 3 1/2 inch Robart scale wheels, a 65 engine turing a 16 x 4.5 prop, this one weighs 45 ounces......LOL right now it has an 88 in it..

Randy

Randy Powell · « **Reply #81 on:** October 22, 2009, 10:22:10 PM »

Randy,

I stand corrected. I've always believed that you can't argue with someone that agrees with you. I was wrong.

RandySmith · « **Reply #82 on:** October 22, 2009, 11:25:24 PM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on October 22, 2009, 10:22:10 PM

Randy,

I stand corrected. I've always believed that you can't argue with someone that agrees with you. I was wrong.

Randy

I am not sure why you would believe My post was argueing with you, I was not. You were saying the same thing I believe, that was the only reason I quoted part of the post you made about some beliefs people have, to show by that criteria nothing would ever be new.
My post was directed toward "the others" you wrote in your post
So argueing was not my intent, nor my statement. It was simply meant to be informative, and to express the notion that some have a point of view that nothing is new in stunt, and to show a few things that are new...at least by some's definition.
Your point was well taken, a few will take it to the extreme to show that nothing is new.
There are many more examples out there of this. I would imagine if you took Denny's Orange Crate ,and one of the really high aspect ratio ships that you have done in the past, back to a year after the Nobler was built, George would think it was a very new and radical design. And I think he would be right.

Geeze I don't even think that the T Bird is just a Nobler

Regards
Randy

Randy Powell · « **Reply #83 on:** October 23, 2009, 09:54:31 AM »

Randy,

One of the problems with this sort of communication forum is the loss of facial expressions and voice timbre. The comment was meant to be tongue in cheek. Guess I should have used a little smiley face or something. No offense was taken or meant. Like you, I was trying to convey that some people (not you) will argue with anything just for the drill.

How about this:

John Ashford · « **Reply #84 on:** October 23, 2009, 10:12:52 AM »

Good morning boys and girls,

Back in the dark ages, I owned a '31 Model A Ford five window coupe. It had a 4 Cyl IC engine, four wheels, head and tail lights, drum brakes a steering wheel and a drive train. If I was brave enough, I could get it up to 75-80 mph. The front end was a little "loose" so it got exciting at that speed.

Today I own a couple of cars and they have: An IC engine, four wheels, head and tails lights, drum brakes (rear only) a steering wheel and a drive train.

I suppose that some would say all automobiles are just different versions of the Model A. I really wish I still owned it and if I did I would be driving it around Guthrie, OK to the grocery store and the post office. But, if I were going to take a trip to the California coast, I would much rather drive my Buick which has all of the above but also Power steering, AC and a nice sound system. It also doesn't shake any at 75-80 mph.

Y'all have fun. Tight lines and great engine/motor runs.

Later, John

My appoligies to Lew McFarland and Les McDonald.

Don Hutchinson AMA5402 · « **Reply #85 on:** October 23, 2009, 12:52:37 PM »

Actually, the Nobler was an offshoot of the Chief which was the next iteration after the Go-Devil from the great mind of Bob Palmer. It's all his fault!

Ted Fancher · « **Reply #86 on:** October 23, 2009, 11:15:04 PM »

Quote from: Howard Rush on October 20, 2009, 04:34:14 PM

Not losing RPM in the vertical is an unnecessary condition.

Nothing like a double negative to get the blood flowing.

Ted

Ted Fancher · « **Reply #87 on:** October 23, 2009, 11:26:03 PM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on October 22, 2009, 01:59:57 PM

Randy,

Well, I agree. But it depends on how you see different. To me, changes in moment arms, aspect ratio, airfoil, area and a myriad of other details end up making a big difference in the final product and certainly constitute substantial design changes. For others, the wing, stab, fuse and tail are still in relatively the same position so it's the same as a Nobler. Depends on how you are looking at it, I suppose.

As a side note, I've seen a few planes that are made to look very much (if not exactly) like a Nobler but are radically different aerodynamically. Are they the same as a Nobler?

So, if Bobby Who ever finishes his canard stunter we'll all just say it's just another Wright Flyer?

Ted

Bill Ervin · « **Reply #88 on:** October 24, 2009, 01:45:24 AM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on October 22, 2009, 10:22:10 PM

Randy,

I stand corrected. I've always believed that you can't argue with someone that agrees with you. I was wrong.

Randy, I don't see a resolution to this. It looks like a case where you're both going to have to simply agree to agree...