stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Avaiojet on November 18, 2016, 04:30:15 PM
-
Does anyone know the thickness and length of the Flying Fool airfoil?
Thanks in advance.
Charles
-
Why not get a kit from Pat King and tell us? VD~ But I think span is 36 inches X 8 chord and less than an inch thick.
-
What DOC said!! LL~
The span of the top wing is 34", the chord is 6.2". The stock ribs are 13% of the chord in thickness. My ribs are 17% of the chord in thickness for improved flying characteristics.
Pat
-
What DOC said!! LL~
The span of the top wing is 34", the chord is 6.2". The stock ribs are 13% of the chord in thickness. My ribs are 17% of the chord in thickness for improved flying characteristics.
Pat
Here is Pat Kings Flying Fool Model. Power is an Enya 25BB
-
Check your email.
-
Here is Pat Kings Flying Fool Model. Power is an Enya 25BB
Dennis, have you built every one of Pat's kits? LL~
-
Dennis, have you built every one of Pat's kits? LL~
Not really. Pat is far too prolific to keep up with his output. I built about a dozen of them though.
-
If I wasn't already over loaded with kits and had lots of moolah I would have at least one of each and every kit he lists.
-
The original plan and drawings of the parts is listed here http://www.outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=4414
-
Has anyone built or seen Pat's Fokker triplane? I am thinking about building one for profile scale for this years upcoming Nats.
-
Has anyone built or seen Pat's Fokker triplane? I am thinking about building one for profile scale for this years upcoming Nats.
Rich,
One of my favorite aircraft is the tri-wing Fokker. Built one as a kid and on takeoff it did a 9. I blamed it on the Clark Y.
What is the span of that model?
Built up fuse would make a world of difference.
Charles
-
Rich,
One of my favorite aircraft is the tri-wing Fokker. Built one as a kid and on takeoff it did a 9. I blamed it on the Clark Y.
What is the span of that model?
Built up fuse would make a world of difference.
Charles
Please explain your reasoning for the above statements? How would a full fuselage prevent, or a Clark Y airfoil trigger a figure 9 crash? Span of the model can be found on Pat King's web site.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
Site is having problems at this time. Wingspan for my Fokker Dr1 is 39 7/16", wing area is 565 square inches. The airplane is designed for .45 to .53 engines. Rich indicated he is thinking about using a .56 4-cycle. I am working on the competition version with the Gottingen 298 airfoil. That is the airfoil used on the full scale airplanes.
Pat
-
Site is having problems at this time. Wingspan for my Fokker Dr1 is 39 7/16", wing area is 565 square inches. The airplane is designed for .45 to .53 engines. Rich indicated he is thinking about using a .56 4-cycle. I am working on the competition version with the Gottingen 298 airfoil. That is the airfoil used on the full scale airplanes.
Pat
Pat,
Do you have a Fokker Dr1 with a symmetrical airfoil? And a full fuselage?
Charles
-
Charles,
Both the sport version and the Competition version of the Dr1 are profile airplanes. I don't have any tri-planes that have a full fuselage. I do not have any scale airplanes that have a full fuselage. I do have some scale airplanes that are profile scale. My 54" Bearcat is a full fuselage airplane that is scale except for the airfoil. A competition version with asymmetrical airfoil could be produced for Sport Scale competition. One of these days I will finish the 1/6 scale Fokker Eindecker. That will have a full fuselage and a very scale thin undercambered wing. The airplane is being designed for Sport Scale competition.
-
Charles,
Both the sport version and the Competition version of the Dr1 are profile airplanes. I don't have any tri-planes that have a full fuselage. I do not have any scale airplanes that have a full fuselage. I do have some scale airplanes that are profile scale. My 54" Bearcat is a full fuselage airplane that is scale except for the airfoil. A competition version with asymmetrical airfoil could be produced for Sport Scale competition. One of these days I will finish the 1/6 scale Fokker Eindecker. That will have a full fuselage and a very scale thin undercambered wing. The airplane is being designed for Sport Scale competition.
Pat,
Possibly a scale looking tri-plane that stunts might be of interest? Take a pole. LL~
With orders, I could do the file for laser cutting.
Work a deal.
Orders or not and deal or not, I will eventually design and build "one."
It's such a great airplane to model.
Charles
-
Charles,
The sport version of the Dr1 will stunt. It has symmetrical airfoil on all three wings. It is a profile airplane.
Interesting fact, the full scale Dr1 had 201 sq. ft. of wing area and fully loaded was over 1200 pounds. that gives 6 pounds per square foot. The model has over 4 square feet of wing area and even if it was built at a whopping 6 pounds it would have less than 1 1/2 pounds per square foot.
If I was going to do a full fuse multi-winged airplane I would most likely do the DeHaviland Dragon Rapide. I think that is the most beautiful multi engine bi-plane ever designed. y1
Pat
-
Re. the Clark Y aerofoil, is it not the case that if you mount a Clark Y wing with the flat underside parallel to the datum line, thinking that you've set it at zero incidence, you've actually incorporated at least two degrees of positive incidence? That's not going to make much difference on a low-powered, heavily-loaded trainer type of model, but I expect that something with plenty of power and plenty of wing area might be very likely to go straight into an unexpected loop as soon as it takes off.
-
Re. the Clark Y aerofoil, is it not the case that if you mount a Clark Y wing with the flat underside parallel to the datum line, thinking that you've set it at zero incidence, you've actually incorporated at least two degrees of positive incidence? That's not going to make much difference on a low-powered, heavily-loaded trainer type of model, but I expect that something with plenty of power and plenty of wing area might be very likely to go straight into an unexpected loop as soon as it takes off.
John,
I had that "9" happen to me with a tri-plane I built as a kid. Three wings all Clark Y. A learning experience.
I will design and build another buy not with the Clark Y.
-
I've witnessed a lot of figure 9's with symmetrical airfoils. LL~ LL~ LL~
-
I've got plans for both a Sopwith Camel and a Fokker Triplane, 35-40 size. Both are pretty much scale outlines, although the wings/cockpit were moved back about 1in. for balance reasons. Both designed by Pete Simonson, Minneapolis Piston Poppers, around 1970. A few years later he flew a scale DeHavilland Gypsy Moth at the Nationals, circa 1972, I believe. Both would put up a nice pattern using an Enya 29.
The plans are on my drawing list, since they are original pencil drawings.
Phil C
-
John,
I had that "9" happen to me with a tri-plane I built as a kid. Three wings all Clark Y. A learning experience.
I will design and build another buy not with the Clark Y.
More than likely just out of balance (tail heavy), misaligned, and over controlled. Way too many ways for a kid to screw this up, and less likely that any particular airfoil caused the figure 9. Clark Y airfoils have been used on countless airplanes, and didn't cause a figure 9. Short nose moment, tail heavy balance configuration, and misaligned wings more likely. With ANY other air foil, including a symmetrical, and these conditions will get you the same result. Don't blame it on just the airfoil.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
-
More than likely just out of balance (tail heavy), misaligned, and over controlled. Way too many ways for a kid to screw this up, and less likely that any particular airfoil caused the figure 9. Clark Y airfoils have been used on countless airplanes, and didn't cause a figure 9. Short nose moment, tail heavy balance configuration, and misaligned wings more likely. With ANY other air foil, including a symmetrical, and these conditions will get you the same result. Don't blame it on just the airfoil.
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee
"Misaligned" is the point I rather hoped I'd made here. One has to be well aware, when using a Clark Y-sectioned wing, that when the flat bottom is parallel to the datum line, the wing will have about two degrees of positive incidence. In other words, it will be quite significantly misaligned if zero incidence is what one is aiming for.
-
Charles,
What do you think of this? A full fuselage, sorta scale triplane for .45 sizes engines. This would be a good sport flyer.
Pat
-
Pat,
Interesting model, definitely a fun project! Here is a picture of one I built for a WW1 Combat event we used to have. I took the outline of a Guillows rubber free flight scale model and thickened the airfoil. It flies great and surprised me with tighter outsides than insides.
Wondering if you had considered staggering the span of the wings like the DR1?
G
-
Gordon,
Good looking airplane! This one is in the preliminary stages. The way it is shown no leading edge or trailing edge is longer than 36". The chord is 5", if I make it any longer the fuselage will have to change a bunch. If I shorten the center or bottom wing I will have less than 600 square inches. I really do not want less than about 560 square inches for a .345 size airplane. I could go up in chord and span on the top wing and make it a .60 size airplane.
This one will kick around in my feeble mind until I complete a Martin Mauler Profile Carrier airplane and an F6F 1/2A sheet wing. Any other input is welcome.
Thanks, Pat
-
Charles,
What do you think of this? A full fuselage, sorta scale triplane for .45 sizes engines. This would be a good sport flyer.
Pat
Pat,
Nice drawing and nice looking model.
I personally like scale outlines when it can be accomplished.
If I draw one up, the scale outlines will be close.
Charles
-
Here is a second pass at a sport triplane that looks sort of scale. I already have a profile sport triplane that is scale, and a competition version of the same airplane with asymmetrical scale airfoil. If I complete this one it will be a sport airplane that looks like a composite of full scale airplanes. This fuselage is sort of Fokker D VII, the tailfeathers are sort of Fokker D VII. The wings are not really like any WW I airplane.
Pat
-
Here is a second pass at a sport triplane that looks sort of scale. I already have a profile sport triplane that is scale, and a competition version of the same airplane with asymmetrical scale airfoil. If I complete this one it will be a sport airplane that looks like a composite of full scale airplanes. This fuselage is sort of Fokker D VII, the tailfeathers are sort of Fokker D VII. The wings are not really like any WW I airplane.
Pat
Pat,
Yes, I like this one much better. All wings being a different size. H^^
I'm guessing you draw the fuselages horizontal then rotate for the plans?
I have to draw fuselages horizontal, can't do it any other way.
Here's the Gee Bee R-3 drawing.
I could do the outline on a tri-plane and you could do the plans and kit.
Just toss me one kit? Well, maybe two. ;D
Could work?
Charles
-
What DOC said!! LL~
The span of the top wing is 34", the chord is 6.2". The stock ribs are 13% of the chord in thickness. My ribs are 17% of the chord in thickness for improved flying characteristics.
Pat
Doesn't this take if out of "OT"? Seems to me that changing (thickening) the airfoil removes it from OT, just saying........
Jerry
-
Doesn't this take if out of "OT"? Seems to me that changing (thickening) the airfoil removes it from OT, just saying........
Jerry
Jerry,
The D1 I have interest in designing would be a new design, wouldn't qualify for OTS.
I'm a sport builder anyway.
I have an All American for OTS.
Would you be interested in a D1 with scale outlines that will stunt?
Charles
-
You may be served if you were to clarify whether you are trying to DO stunt, or just do a few loops. There is a big difference. When you say "stunt" on here most people associate that with DOING STUNT which is far removed from doing the occasional loop
-
Hey Pat,
Here's another option, this time with equal wingspans.
Albatross Triplane...
G
-
Hey Pat,
Here's another option, this time with equal wingspans.
Albatross Triplane...
G
Gordon,
The Albatross is actually a better choice.
Plenty of schemes.
But the spinner?
Charles
-
Doesn't this take if out of "OT"? Seems to me that changing (thickening) the airfoil removes it from OT, just saying........
Jerry
The Flying Fool is too new a design to qualify for OTS. The Flying Fool is not, and was not intended to be, an airplane for stunt competition. As a sport airplane the thicker airfoil helps flight characteristics. With the thicker airfoil, parts that fit, and lighter wood it makes a nice sport airplane that will loop, fly inverted, do lazy eights, and outside loops.
Pat
-
Sopwith Triplane... ;);)
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
-
As for performance, this would be a sport model.
Pat nailed it, " With the thicker airfoil, parts that fit, and lighter wood it makes a nice sport airplane that will loop, fly inverted, do lazy eights, and outside loops."
Sport is what I'm interested in and I'd be delighted with a three wing Al. or DR-1 that would do this.
Would have to have close to scale outlines though.
Who's making round nose spinners? LL~