Here is my plan

[Doug Moon]

I have been working on it off and on for a long time. 

I have already built one and I am working on another.

What do you all think? 

You have to click on the PDF file.  I dont know how to make it show up like the photos.

Or view the JPG I copied from the PDF.

[Circlejerk]

UHHH.....UMMMMM.... can we talk about the rudder? 

[Ron King]

Looks great, Doug. I'm guessing there's some Gieseke influence in that design.

I hope you will be able to compete at the Nats again soon.

Ron

[peabody]

Hi Doug
The plane in the picture has parallel ribs, but plan has geo style...
Which one are you sending me?

[PatRobinson]

Hi guys,

Let's please not go there again,with  critique of rudder design, and besides if you look at the picture and not the plans it looks perfectly fine "as is" and has the added flexibility to easily change the look by simply adding a short or a long dorsal fin in front of the rudder and still look good. That is not true of all rudder designs.  I am assuming that the fuselage depth is for a pipe tunnel and to balance side area from front to back to minimize yawing in the
wind.  On paper it may not look a sleek as some people might like, but in the photos it is perfectly fine. So all in all, I would have to say that your design translates well into the real world.  Doug, put a slick finish on that "Bad Boy" and you should be ready to rock and roll.

                                                        Pat Robinson

[Doug Moon]

Thanks for the replies so far.  And yes you can talk about any of the design you like and or dislike.  Give me some feedback ask questions or give ideas or pointers.  I am always looking to learn something.

The lower area was a pipe tunnel a long time ago but then the plane became a 4s plane right before it was finished last time.  I left the lower belly area because I personally like it.  I also feel a portion of the bottom or the top of the plane needs to be flat.  In my view it helps to make the plane look very flat on exit and fly very level in level flight. All too many times and round underbelly or scale like plane wont have that appearance, at least to me anyway.

Say whatever you want about it.

Rich,

The wing in the plane is the drawing of the lost foam cradle and the rib positions.  The wing in the plane uses laser cut ribs.  I sent Kyle the tip and root and how many ribs I want and he cuts them and then I space them accordingly in the foam craddle.  Builds in a couple of hours that way.  Best of both worlds.  Laser ribs with a full structure supporting jig.

[peabody]

Doug...
Is that a geo-Bolt wing?
Your stuff has a whole lot of features that arte kewl, and much different than the Windy/Big Jim stuff that we see here in the Northeast.....

[Doug Moon]

Rich,

Yes that is the geo bolt wing. 

What kind of features are different?

[Bradley Walker]

People have to be wary of looking at plan and making decisions about how the finished plane will look.

The Furias is a good example.  I told Doug that I felt the 2D plan did not do the model justice at all.  While the actual 3D model has beautiful lines, the 2D drawing makes the model fuselage look like a barn door.  If I had not actually seen the model, and had simply been shown the plans, I would have made the assumption that the finished plane would also look like a barn door, which it does not...

I guess that is why I said that maybe showing preliminary plans is not such a good idea.  Plans have to be an afterthought after you see the finished product.

[Randy Powell]

From the styling, I can tell that you've been hanging out with Brad way too much.   

It looks good to me. I like the rudder.

[Bradley Walker]

From the styling, I can tell that you've been hanging out with Brad way too much.   

It looks good to me. I like the rudder.

Or vise versa.  Smart alek.  He he he...

[Bill Little]

Thanks for the replies so far.  And yes you can talk about any of the design you like and or dislike.  Give me some feedback ask questions or give ideas or pointers.  I am always looking to learn something.

The lower area was a pipe tunnel a long time ago but then the plane became a 4s plane right before it was finished last time.  I left the lower belly area because I personally like it.  I also feel a portion of the bottom or the top of the plane needs to be flat.  In my view it helps to make the plane look very flat on exit and fly very level in level flight. All too many times and round underbelly or scale like plane wont have that appearance, at least to me anyway.

Say whatever you want about it.

Rich,

The wing in the plane is the drawing of the lost foam cradle and the rib positions.  The wing in the plane uses laser cut ribs.  I sent Kyle the tip and root and how many ribs I want and he cuts them and then I space them accordingly in the foam craddle.  Builds in a couple of hours that way.  Best of both worlds.  Laser ribs with a full structure supporting jig.

Hi Doug,

I like the overall design!  It *looks right* on paper as far as the numbers.

I would suggest rounding the top corners of the rudder to match more evenly with the wingtips.  I know it has the square ends on the Stab, but you have the rudderlets there, which I would knock the corners down a touch, too.  It is not a true *angular design, and it seems to be competing with itself in that regard..  It just looks a *little* "disjointed" with the sharp corners of the top of the fin/rudder.  NOT A LOT of rounding, just taking off the sharp corners.  IMHO, it would present better with that as it would match the wing tips a bit better.  *I* think it would be a more cohesive look.

I do agree with the bottom line you have.  Flatter fuselage bottoms appear in maneuvers as "flatter bottoms and better turns"!  My 100% scale rendition of the Spacehound ('64 WC) shows that a rounded fuse bottom DOES present softer corners, then again, it really plays up the round maneuvers!

All in all it is a good looking design with just the personal opinion I have on the rudder/fin and rudderlets corners.

[Bradley Walker]

I would suggest rounding the top corners of the rudder to match more evenly with the wingtips.  I know it has the square ends on the Stab, but you have the rudderlets there, which I would knock the corners down a touch, too.  It is not a true *angular design, and it seems to be competing with itself in that regard..  It just looks a *little* "disjointed" with the sharp corners of the top of the fin/rudder.  NOT A LOT of rounding, just taking off the sharp corners.  IMHO, it would present better with that as it would match the wing tips a bit better.  *I* think it would be a more cohesive look.

I do not understand the "matchy, matchy" line of thinking in design.  Like the rudder has to "match" the wingtips, or since the wing is elliptical the tail must look like the wing.

Many of the classic "best" designs do not follow this at all...

I think of people who decorate their house in one color.  Sure, everything matches, but there is little variety or "pop" in the design.

[Bill Little]

I do not understand the "matchy, matchy" line of thinking in design.  Like the rudder has to "match" the wingtips, or since the wing is elliptical the tail must look like the wing.

Many of the classic "best" designs do not follow this at all...

I think of people who decorate their house in one color.  Sure, everything matches, but there is little variety or "pop" in the design.

Hi there, ol' argue with a fence post, Brad! 

Everything I said was prefaced by "IMHO, or "*I* think".

"Many of the classic "best" designs do not follow this at all..."

As to Classic designs, we are not looking at the same classic planes I guess.  An Ares, Argus, Cobra, even Nobler (!!) have "rounded corners" everywhere.  There are some Classic planes that have sharper corners everywhere.  With *little* exception, I have not seen Classic planes with BOTH.....

IMHO (still) I would not like the *sharp corners* on certain "plan views" and rounded areas on others.  Over the 40 odd years I have been keeping up with this event, I have just noticed that most of the planes that people call really good, usually aspire to one camp or the other, not usually both.  Plus, I have destroyed my first copy of Tom Morris' Classic Plans book from constantly studying the views in it.  From one end to the other.  Yes, there are exceptions, but I have seen few.  Just another's perspective!  

Not my plane, just giving the suggestions that Doug ASKED for! 

Ain't it good, though, that we all don't like the very same thing?  Some people like the very angular, straight, lines of the new Ferraris (Enzos and such), I love the 250 & 275 GTO of the '60s, and the Testarossa of 1955-56.  Very "flowing". 

It WOULD be boring if everyone had a plane that looked exactly like everyone elses!

[Doug Moon]

In person the Corners on the rudders are all pretty much the same on all three corners.  That is what I try to go for.  It doesnt draw your eye right to one spot.  If you have one thing that is off or out of place on the design like a sharp corner on the bottom of the rudder when everything else is rounded your eye goes right to that spot.  I think I will round the rudder corners a little more to get them more in line with how the plane is really being built. 

I personally dont like the wingtips from a design stand point and think they are very blah blah blah but i have a Geo wing with swept out tips like you see on many other designs.  Comparing the two in teh air and the rounded tiped wing seemed to be better in the turbulant air.  Is that the real reason?  No one knows.  Many people will tell you that it is but they have 0 to back it up with.   

I also think things need to match to some degree.  But this plane has little that is really matching.  Round wing tips, Square Stab tips (rudderlets force this to be this way), and a big rudder with nothing in common.  But the rudder size goes well with the size of the fuse side area. 

[Doug Moon]

I do not understand the "matchy, matchy" line of thinking in design.  Like the rudder has to "match" the wingtips, or since the wing is elliptical the tail must look like the wing.

Many of the classic "best" designs do not follow this at all...

I think of people who decorate their house in one color.  Sure, everything matches, but there is little variety or "pop" in the design.

A good example is the Ed Southwick's Lark.  It has eliptical wings, not a big fan of myself, and a squared off rudder with sharp points.  This plane looks great!  My borther is flying one now and it looks very good in the air. 

[Bill Little]

Hi Doug,

I have seen the Southwick Lark, and it does look good, but the corners are not "as sharp" as what the tiny little plan view" of yours looks like.  And trying to tell from a tiny picture of a full size plan is hard to do.  Just my *opinion* from studying airplanes for years.   Like I said, there ARE exceptions to what I suggested, I do not deny that, but the exceptions are fewer in what seems to be the larger number of "generally accepted "great *DESIGNS* from the Classic era.  Not great FLYING designs, but those that keep being mentioned as "pretty" *designs*.

I started by saying I thought it looked good.  Since you asked for opinions, I gave one.  My reason for doing so, was not to get a justification from you (nor Brad) as to why it is as it is.  It was just *MY OPINION*.

Knowing you fairly well (at least as well as one personal contact, some phone calls and emails can allow!), I don't *think* you are as defensive.........

Main question is "How does it fly??" 

[Ron King]

Another thing to consider and Doug mentioned it in one of his posts:

Doug has drawn up his fuselage profile to help himself (and the judges) get a better view of the plane. With luck, I never see the wing, nor should I see the paint design on the wing or stab. All I ever want to see is the fuselage silhouette of the model when it's in flight.

Personal opinion: I like the plane. I like the Gieseke Bear influence and the Geo Bolt wing. If you're going to borrow and/or adapt ideas, then World Championship ideas are a great place to start. Doug is a man after my own heart. 

My .02,

Ron
 

[Doug Moon]

Bill,

It flys REALLY GOOD!  I mean it is just a great combination of things and it works really good.

I cant wait to get it done.

Ron,

Thanks for the kind words.

[minnesotamodeler]

I dunno, to my eye it looks very "heavy" from the side...seems like an awful lot of fuselage area. Does that help it stay up in overheads maybe?  Just another point of view, FWIW (not much).

--Ray

[Bradley Walker]

Hi there, ol' argue with a fence post, Brad! 

Everything I said was prefaced by "IMHO, or "*I* think".

"Many of the classic "best" designs do not follow this at all..."

As to Classic designs, we are not looking at the same classic planes I guess. 

Sigh...

Did I say anything less than MY opinion? 

I certainly do not fault the people who design airplanes this way, i just do not always agree it is a good choice.  I will never argue the point of asthetics, it is just a waste of time. 

Lark, Skylark, T-Bird, T-Bird 2, Mustang anything ever, etc etc etc

[Eric Viglione]

Don't forget the Smoothie, A-Bomb, Ares,Dolphin,Grey Ghost,StuntWagon, etc. 
Who says ya can't put a round peg in a square hole? Just get a bigger hammer!!! 
EricV

[Doug Moon]

I dunno, to my eye it looks very "heavy" from the side...seems like an awful lot of fuselage area. Does that help it stay up in overheads maybe?  Just another point of view, FWIW (not much).

--Ray

Ray,

The top and bottom blocks are molded 3/32 completely round.  So in person they dont look so heavy. But in 2-d it does look heavy.

[Bill Little]

Sigh...

Did I say anything less than MY opinion? 

I certainly do not fault the people who design airplanes this way, i just do not always agree it is a good choice.  I will never argue the point of asthetics, it is just a waste of time. 

Lark, Skylark, T-Bird, T-Bird 2, Mustang anything ever, etc etc etc

Ok, Brad,

I was yanking your chain as evidenced by the numerous "hysterical" and all emoticons.  Take your "Sigh....." and do whatever pleases you with it!  Your condescending attitude has no basis in reality.

We all do have our own preferences.  I guess I WAS correct.  Everyone else is    wrong whenever it comes to anything you say.  I appolgise for being so ignorant.  If I had known that you can't identify the emoticons or take some ribbing I would not have posted that.  I have always been a fairly calm person and like to poke at people (like a ton of others here) so I meant no harm.  I forgot that you consider all of this very minor hobby to be of World importance and that the end time will come if anyone doesn't agree with you.

BTW: you don't need to defend Doug so much, he's a big boy now, and can take care of himself.  If some of us don't like all of your design features, GET OVER IT!  You build for yourself like the rest of us, so you don't have to please anyone BUT yourself.

I was talking to Doug about this, in my first post, and he should know where I am coming from. 

[Bradley Walker]

Bill,

I will give you same advice you gave me.

Take a pill...

You are reading WAY too much into anything I said.

Like I said, ARGUING aesthetics is silly.

[Bill Little]

Bill,

I will give you same advice you gave me.

Take a pill...

You are reading WAY too much into anything I said.

Like I said, ARGUING aesthetics is silly.

OK, Brad.  Truce.  

Us old farts cannot always read things as they are intended.

[Bill Little]

Doug,

Like I said, in the beginning, I think it looks fine overall.  Especially as to the numbers/relationship.  Glad to hear it is a great flying plane.  It sounds like the "parts" are very good.

How is the *46 Bear* doing??

[Doug Moon]

Bear 46 has a tiger 60 in it and it kills!!  Choked down and running a TF 13-6.  Great flying plane!!

[Bill Little]

Bear 46 has a tiger 60 in it and it kills!!  Choked down and running a TF 13-6.  Great flying plane!!

    

ST .60!!          Should be ready for gale force winds! LOL!!  From what I remember it flew pretty good with the 46LA.

Have y'all had much chance to fly?  When it is decent here (no windstorms or rain) it has been a bazillion degrees...........  we flew Sunday afternoon in 95*+ but set up in the shade and had gallons of ice water.  Some clouds really helped out!  We set all kinds of records for heat this summer.......

[Doug Moon]

Flys way better with the 60 it!  WAY WAY WAY better!  The 60 is detuned and it just loafs along and doesnt know the plane is even back there.  It is so cool.

[Bradley Walker]

Flys way better with the 60 it!  WAY WAY WAY better!  The 60 is detuned and it just loafs along and doesnt know the plane is even back there.  It is so cool.

It really is quite interesting...

The Bear 46 seemed to have come out with the nose just a tick too short, so Doug was always looking for nose weight with the LA 46.  He was talking about BUYING a ST 51 and I  offered him one of my Big Vig ST 60's with a tube muffler (I had spares).  Luckily, it dropped right in...

The Tube muffler chokes the engine down from Big Jim St 60 level to more like Dixon DS 60 levels.  In fact, that is the way we went.  Based on Steve Fitton's DS 60 rig, I was pushing Doug on the 13-6 TF.  It got bolted up and the engine dialed to the obligatory 7800 RPM, and it was like POW!  Instant kick ass motor runs, instant kick ass patterns, what a great 4-2 break (I love that).  Doug was only burning 4 oz of fuel to do a pattern, so why not run a 60?  Eather has been pushing the small, light plane with a sweet 60 for many years, and man it really works.

Running 60 in a 40 sized plane is just the same power ratio as running a 76 or even a 91 in a Strega sized plane.  There is no advantage except you can set a hemi ST 60 so SWEEEEEEEEET.....

BAHHHHHHHHHHHH   NEEEEEPP   BAHHHHHHHHH  NEEEEP  BAHHHHHHHH  NEEEPPP!!!!

Truly, there is no sweeter run than a good baffle engine with low compression.  It is great if you have excess engine to pull it off.

[Doug Moon]

Running 60 in a 40 sized plane is just the same power ratio as running a 76 or even a 91 in a Strega sized plane.  There is no advantage except you can set a hemi ST 60 so SWEEEEEEEEET.....

AND.......the bear 4660 goes into the back of just about any car out there..