How to fly slowly

[Alan Hahn]

I have been thinking about this through several recent threads.

Typically I feel pretty uncomfortable when my lap times get much above 5.2 to 5.3 s. This is for most if not all planes I have flown recently--basically Noblers, Brodak profile P40's, and a Vector 40. This is true for me whether it is electric or glow. I fly o lines from 60 to 64 feet handle to plane center.

So I am wondering what is the "secret" to be being able to fly a longer lap and feel like the plane will pull over the top and still have enough line tension to do maneuvers? What am I missing here? 

[W.D. Roland]

Are we getting to old to do this?

I suffer from both Alans and TYs problems and then more!

In practicing novice pattern I keep finding that the wing over was missed!

I have a theory that if I fly an old AMA fast combat for a gallon of fuel that the stunt planes will slow down or possibly I will fall over dead!!
Problem is I hate to build a stooge for combat and the wife wants to launch the airplane as soon as the .36CBS comes to life. Might duct tape her hands to it.

Guess I better set the Shark 45 up with a V60 and see if I can slow it down.
I do have a box of .049s and might could mount one on the outboard wing facing outboard.
Hey!--watch that laughing! some one did exactly that way back in the day!

[Brian Massey]

From my limited experience I have to say lap times of 5.2-5.4 are wonderful . . . as long as you can pull the reverse wingover without losing line tension. Right now I'm flying a Trophy Trainer with an LA46 and seem to be hanging in the  4.8-4.9 lap time area on 62 foot lines (eye to eye) . . . for some reason I just can't get the times get down. I'm OK with that time, but really prefer the slower "5's" lap times.

And Ty is right; need time to think!!  (Yes, I've left out stuff, and wondered where the  I was.)

Brian

[Dick Pacini]

I remember a plane I saw at a contest years ago that was a scrawny looking model in clear dope.  The pilot was just as scrawny and looked like he just walked out of the outback, complete with Aussie hat.

The plane had a Fox35 on it and was absolutely the strangest running engine I had ever heard.  It ran like a hit and miss engine, running more on centrifugal force than combustion.

The entire pattern was in slow motion.  The plane would almost stop in midair before the engine burped a little power.  Every maneuver was performed that way.  How the model stayed out on the lines was a mystery.

The square corners were unbelievable and the triangles were dead solid with no skidding.  The flight used almost the complete 8 minutes and may even have run over.  I just don't know how he did it.

[Serge_Krauss]

Alan-

Responding here, I feel a bit like Bret Spiner's character in "Independence Day," when he says "They don't let us out much...," or something similar.

Anyway, if I did the ...s-s-s-s-h-h-h-h-...(math)...right, you would get about the same line tension doing 5.2-second laps on 71'  lines (about 3.4 g's) as you get doing 4.8-second laps on 60' lines. So splitting the difference with something like 5.0 second laps on 70' lines (just over 3.6 g's) might be pretty comfortable. This would probably require less of a tuning compromise, if you had been running a high-RPM/low-pitch set-up. I don't know how much reserve there is to increase the speed and haven't tried this myself yet, but my lighter planes sometimes recently have seemed uncomfortably low in tension to me when doing 5.2 seconds or greater on my 62' lines. Maybe there's a compromise in here somewhere. These examples are for level-flight with no thrust offset or fuselage outward "lift". I allowed an extra 4.0' for extra semi-span and arm lengths to make the actual circle radius for these, uh, computations. 'as always - FWIW.

Edit: 5.0-second laps on 65.3' lines looks like a good bet, since it gives you about the same tension as your original 4.8 second laps on 60'.

Edit 2: I read this thread first, unaware of your posts on the other forums. You have apparently come at this with considerable thought in the power/prop departments; so I'm pretty sure you've already thought about this angle. I know that over at SSWF there have been many discussions relative to the effect of prop size/pitch on things like line tension. Those areas are a lot more subtle than what I have time or experience to handle now. So now what I typed above is realy a "FWIW".

SK

[NED-088]

The problem is not in the 5.5~ 5.6 lap times, but in the 7.0+ laptime-speed -or even slower- that the plane has by the time it is overhead.
That is when all attempts fail to fly a decent pattern.
Prevention lies in having enough prop disk surface and torque to keep up the revs when load goes up. 
Combined with an engine/motor that 'knows' when to add power where needed this can give you an insane slow flight with enough tension everywhere.
Low airframe weight will improve the effect of these mechanisms.
Doing this all with electric is easier to reproduce, but requires more specific knowledge at this point in time....
Erik explained it all.

[Mike Gretz]

In a time long ago, before people paid any attention to lap times, my friend and mentor Arnold Stott told me; "You want to fly just fast enough to get through the reverse wingover.  If you can get through it with good line tension, you can get through the rest of the pattern".  I always found that was good advice.  I'm sure Arnie wasn't the first to say this.  He was tutored by many of the 1960s era NATS fliers.

I'd be very curious now to know what those lap times, that felt so good, actually were.  As a yardstick, can anyone tell me what the lap time would be for a typical Fox 35 powered Nobler on 60ft lines?  I was flying that and McCoy 40 powered Sig CL-3 Chipmunks, also on 60ft.

Mike

PS Remember in those days (all IC with simple vented tanks) the engine tended to speed up slightly as the pattern progressed, which helped the issue.

[Serge_Krauss]

The problem is not in the 5.5~ 5.6 lap times, but in the 7.0+ laptime-speed -or even slower- that the plane has by the time it is overhead.
That is when all attempts fail to fly a decent pattern.
Prevention lies in having enough prop disk surface and torque to keep up the revs when load goes up. 
...

I fully agree with this, which mirrors accepted practice with full-sized aircraft in climb vs. cruise performance too. My musings were more from a personal perspective. One problem on my smaller planes past a slight weight issue (40 oz on 500 in^2, flapless), has been apparent degradation in turn performance with the heftier props that increase disc area, but whose mass also increases wing loading, polar inertial moment, and gyro effects - aggravated by the need for more tail weight. I'd try a three-bladed  combination, but that seems counterproductive while I continue to break props. So far the lighter wooden ones have not worked all that well. My lap-time proposal also compromises the pitch and increases tip speed, but as I said, I haven't tried it. Maybe I should just commit and rebuild the nose to move the mass back. Options in this area seem greater for the more powerful engines in planes with larger flying surfaces than mine. Otherwise, nose heaviness in light models diminishes line tension overhead through increased inward (downward) yaw tendency at the top, something that leadout position can only "fix" through compromise. Anyway, if there's enough thrust to minimize speed loss climbing to overhead, all else being equal, a heavier plane will have more tension overhead than a lighter one. Just more musings here, but, of course, you are right.

SK

[Alan Hahn]

Well of course my main motivation is to see if I can pry out some techniques.

If you look into the electric forum, or even gasp into the engineering forum, you can see that I have been spending some time trying to understand what our powerplants of interest are up too when we give them the tug on the up line and start a climb.

I am beginning to be convinced that power and props are not the whole story here, and that preserving the airplanes momentum into the climb is perhaps the biggest factor. Flying fast brings in more momentum in the first place, but preserving it or maintaining it is the trick.

Some of it --the flying slow part--may be to some extent a form of optical illusion, I am not sure how much though.

But I do think it is just a powerful image to see a plane "slowly" enter a square corner--not looking hurried--and see it climb "effortlessly" and gracefully upward. I am just unclear how to do that.

[john e. holliday]

I have been told in the past and I have tried to relate it here.  Each airplane/engine combination has a happy medium in which they like to fly.  Power is great in all cases especially if you build heavy.  That is also where speed helps in the flying of the plane.  Timing of the pattern comes with practice.  I tell people that listen that once you have your combination working, then time your laps.  It is a referance to tell if some thing is wrong.  In my part of the country I would rather have a plane with a little speed.

[Kim Doherty]

IMHO flying stunt well does not permit slow lap times on nice days and faster ones in turbulent weather. Consistency is and always will be the name of the game. Since slow lap times can not succeed in turbulent conditions it is necessary to pick a fairly brisk speed to fly at regardless of the conditions.

In more than twenty years of competing with the best fliers in the world I do not think I have ever met anyone who was consistently successful while flying slow lap times. If I had to pick a range of all around useable lap times I would look in the range of 4.9 to 5.2 seconds per lap and not much slower. Can you fly slower? Sure!

In choosing a lap time bear in mind that it is the model which is doing the flying and not you! The model must be flown at a speed which will permit it to execute every manoeuvre as well as the last in all conditions without variance. That you "LIKE " to fly slow has little to do with successful mastery of the pattern. If your model is struggling at some point in the pattern you need to pick the lap speed up and learn to deal with it. Longer lines with the same lap speed will yield higher air speeds and make the model fly crisper manoeuvres.   

Kim.

[Mark Scarborough]

But I do think it is just a powerful image to see a plane "slowly" enter a square corner--not looking hurried--and see it climb "effortlessly" and gracefully upward. I am just unclear how to do that.

Alan,
odd but thats just how every body elses planes look like to me, slow and majestic,  but mine seem to SCREAM into the squares! optical delusions to be sure 
especially since they are all at about the same lap times,,

[Alan Hahn]

Alan,
odd but thats just how every body elses planes look like to me, slow and majestic,  but mine seem to SCREAM into the squares! optical delusions to be sure 
especially since they are all at about the same lap times,,

You probably have it right. As you note, as an observer you are often some distance away from the circle, and maybe that is what contributes to the "delusion". When you are the pilot, you are only 60 to 70 feet away, and things seem to happen about twice as fast.

[Robertc]

I have flown the whole pattern at 6 sec lap speed ( at near sea level) on my piped Cobra.  Had an incredible 2/4 break, and had all the power I needed when going vertical.  Having said that,
I was scored down for it as a judge told me after the contest.  Told me that it just didn't present well.  In order to get the lap speeds that slow, you need a light, straight plane and plenty of
"correct" power.  My electric Desperado flies at 5.4 to 5.5 no problem.

[Neville Legg]

I take it these lap times relate to a certain line length?    Dick Mathis did a article on this in Flying Models with his Chizzler design. I like to fly slowly, as my reactions aren't that quick, but line tension becomes an issue. What airspeed do these lap times equate to?

Cheers    Nevile

[Shultzie]

I have flown the whole pattern at 6 sec lap speed ( at near sea level) on my piped Cobra.  Had an incredible 2/4 break, and had all the power I needed when going vertical.  Having said that,
I was scored down for it as a judge told me after the contest.  Told me that it just didn't present well.   In order to get the lap speeds that slow, you need a light, straight plane and plenty of
"correct" power.  My electric Desperado flies at 5.4 to 5.5 no problem.

Not to start a  stunt judge hisssssseeeefight-fit'.... I too, have heard that from the mouths of some pretty well known stunt judges......however HISTORY HAS PRETTY WELL CONVINCED ME that many of our greatest flyers have flown consistant world cup winning patterns with high numbered lap times.
Actually that seems pretty strange that just because someone flies a sloooooooow pattern shouldn't effect the final score sheet.
 Thinking back....Bob Gieske, Dick Mathis and a HOST OF OTHER ICON CLPA SOULS....used to fly EXTREMELY SLOW...with their FOX 35 TRADE MARK 2/4  with startling engine breaks.

[Alan Hahn]

Well you can increase line length and have the plane fly faster, but remember that the top of the circle gets higher too, so in the end gravity still slows you down.

[Russell Shaffer]

Ty, does wing loading apply in overheads?  You don't have any help up there.

[Larry Fulwider]

I’m a little lost here. I thought most everyone – one way or t’other – used the “55 MPH” rule. Guess not; or at least no one specifically mentions it. 

That is, with any new combo of plane, engine, and line length (center-of-body to center-of-plane line length,), we calculate the lap time required to give us a 55 mph airspeed.  That lap time is the target for early trimming flights.
   The 55 mph number means that we expect to be able to trim for adequate line tension and good cornering without flying faster lap times than the calculated lap time.
   The judgment required, before the first flight is, “do I have the right combination of engine / prop / airplane / line length to reach the target 55 speed ‘comfortably’”? That is where experience and forums come into play – questions like if a “Nobler with a Fox 35 would ‘work’ on 68 foot lines?” I always assume the person asking the question is implying “will this be a viable 55 mph combo?” The answer is usually a guess, and I would guess “NO” in my Nobler-Fox example.

So, if you want to fly slower, you reverse the arithmetic, still using the 55 mph rule. All you (essentially) need is the ponies to keep the plane up to speed throughout the pattern with the longer lines?
   If, in trimming, you find a particular airplane / powertrain combo that seems happy at speeds lower than 55, that is an exploitable combo?

If you wish to purposely design an airplane for slower than 55 mph speeds, I think you are in virgin territory. Was that the intent of the query?

   Larry Fulwider

[Doug Moon]

I like to fly slow.  As slow as humanly possible and still have adequate line tension.  Pretty much standard type answer huh?

I fly my full sized 65 pa plane at a 5.85 lap time at a total length of 69'10". 

As you know there are special setups for each model where they perform to their highest potential.  In my model's case it is a low drag wing with a fairly aft cg using large flying surfaces with minimal deflections.  Couple that with a very low pitch prop at a high rpm setting (in a constant 4 cycle throughout the flight) and you have a combination for good line tension at low speeds.

You have to have the right collection of variables to create this situation. 

The plane needs to be light weight.  This always makes it easier.

The plane is low drag.  That means I can use a low pitch, 3.5 all the way out, and still have enough drive to get through the maneuvers.  If the plane were a more high drag model it would require more pitch to drive through corners that want to slow the model down.  Thus probably demanding more over all speed.  Aft cg along with large flying surfaces will only require small deflections to get the desired corner.  This is also low drag.  The low pitch prop will work here just fine. 

The very low pitch prop will be a HUGE brake on the front of the plane.  It will hit a speed and stop.  It simply wont go faster.  The low drag and low pitch allow the motor to run at high rpms but still remain in a very forgiving and stable 4 cycle.   In fact it is delivering tons of torque in that high rpm 4 cycle which is contributing the slow flying because it gives such solid even line tension everywhere in the hemisphere. 

There is no secret to flying slow.  It is just that not many people do it.  So in many cases trying to slow down and fly at speeds "outside of the stunt box" will put you on your own.

What I find curious is that over the past several years 5-7 there has been a move to 5.0-4.8 times on full lines.  This with the addition of new bigger motors.  This makes no sense to me as the pattern will always be easier to fly when flown as slow as can be with solid line tension.  It will be easier to stay ahead of the model and make proper pullouts and find intersections. 

It just is.   

[Rudy Taube]

I'm sorry the formating of this spreadsheet does not look straight here (my "transporter" machine needs some work, I'll get SCOTTY to look at it ;-) but I think it is still readable? l hope it gives some idea of line length vs lap time vs plane speed.

If 5 sec lap times feel too fast may I suggest that you borrow an 80 mph combat plane and fly the pattern. You will be doing a 3.4 lap time. When you go back to your 5.0 sec lap time with your stunt plane on longer lines it will seem very sloooooow! Or you could ask Phil or Howard if you can fly one of their AMA combat ships at 2.3 sec lap times! ...... I think they both could still fly the pattern at these speeds, but I know I couldn't! ..... 80 mph combat is fast enough for me now!

When we were kids flying combat together at a contest, Phil would have a soft drink in one hand, be flirting with a cute girl in the crowd, asking if you enjoyed the nice WX and a few seconds into the match you would see your string and streamer floating down to the ground and Phil would just keep smiling .... and yes he would usually get the girl too! (we called them "combat groupies" back then.)   

I had the pleasure to fly with Paul, Dave, Phil, Brett and Howard at the GS champs a few weeks ago. Watching these guys fly makes you realize how beautiful the pattern can look when it is flown very close to perfection. ...... It is like watching a talented artist using a beautiful paint brush to paint perfect figures against a brilliant blue sky!

Paul uses MAX lines (to get the e to e + handle + 1/2 wing span to = the 70' total length max allowed under our rules.) and his lap times are at 5.2 sec. The others seem to be very close to Paul's stats. Paul and Dave are both World Champions and I think they have 16 National Championships between them. My guess is that they all have tried more than a few line lengths, speeds, etc., and that they have found the max lines, relatively moderate/fast speeds, HIGH POWER systems to be a good choice. ...... Phil still flys beautiful patterns with less power, but then his planes are filled with helium and that helps! 

As seen in the chart below I plan to copy these top pilots with my new P-47, and I fly my P-40 at a little faster lap times but shorter lines, but with a lot of POWER. I feel you can never have too many electrons running around in circles, the more the better (it's like adding more cubic inches to our cars, in America you can never have too many! ;-)

BTW: I guessed at the "A" speed MPH and line length, I think this is what they do? But this still gives us a good idea of what really FAST lap times can be like. 

The speeds listed below gives us a good idea of how fast we are really flying. I think in the past some people have computed our speeds using only the eye to eye line length, this gives us an incorrect slower #. .... IMHO: The higher speeds on longer lines that the top flyer's use gives us much more lift (goes up exponentially with speed), higher g force everywhere, more speed left over at the top of the circle, extra penetration through turbulence and the longer lines still makes the pattern look relatively slow and smooth. .... But your milage may vary. 



PLANE                           E to e   arm+     r          C in feet    lap sec     MPH
                  
 
P-47  ECL                       67          5        72       452.16       5         61.7
                  
P-40  ECL  AXI 2826-10     64       5        69         433.32       5           59.1
                  
P-40  ECL  AXI 2826-10     62       5        67         420.76       5           57.4
                  
Paul Walker ECL                67      5       72         452.16        5.2         59.3
                  
COMBAT  80 MPH                60     4       64         401.92       3.4         80.6
                  
COMBAT AMA 120 MPH        60        4    64          401.92       2.3         119.1
                  
AMA  A  SPEED                 60      2       62         389.36        1.3         204.2

[Alan Hahn]

Wing loading matters a  lot--since to get through the corner you need lift from the wing to pull that weight. A high wing loading will need more lift---assuming you can actually make a small corner (but I think the need to make small corners is another thread entirely).

More lift probably means more slowing down in the corner, and more need for the powerplant/prop combo to try and make up the difference in the vertical climb.

[Shultzie]

Wing loading applies everywhere. If it is too heavy, it is too heavy. The engine/prop combo can only do so much. Inertia, lift, wing loading all affect the planes ability to fly a decent pattern assuming the cat on the handle can do the job too.  Very, very few guys can take a dog and make it fly and look good. Bart Klapinski is one of them. I am not. 

Shame on you Ty! for mentioning Bart.
 I have ranted this before... bare with me on this while I capture this post

 In my lifetime....I SHALL NEVER FORGET seeing Bart Klapinski fly his winning 1967 Nats.
To many of us standing there  watching...Bart performance on both his flights was virtual perfection!
 In fact....I think we were safe in saying that BART'S flying was NOTICABLY UP ONTO A BRAND NEW LEVEL not seen during that 1967 Calif. national.
Taking in the fact that the Navy judging staff score sheets couldn't really illustrate that kind of excellence...I think they pretty much nailed the best flyers for the finals.

After years of reading Model Airplane magazine articles about the gaggle-gathering of iconic....what a rush it was to finally see so many of these ICONS flying the stunt pattern, up close and personal.
Talk about even a greater gift was that the nationals allowed so many of us nerd-de-well-wanna be stunt student addicts a worthy gather place to GO TO THE SCHOOL OF STUNT BIG TIME.
What a learning experience that week....watching these giants of R&R practice, starting at the crack of dawn...or listen to their "stunthanger talk" in that large brightly lighted Naval Hanger work shop during the night time hours.
TALK ABOUT TOY AIRPLANE TIME OVER LOAD!!!

[Neville Legg]

I mentioned Dick Mathis in an earlier post on this thread, and I see he must have done something right with his lightly loaded slow flying Chizzler, as he got 2nd in '67. I read that he had this model flying at 45mph, and obviously maintained line tension? That's the speed I want to fly at!


Cheers       Neville

[Shultzie]

I mentioned Dick Mathis in an earlier post on this thread, and I see he must have done something right with his lightly loaded slow flying Chizzler, as he got 2nd in '67. I read that he had this model flying at 45mph, and obviously maintained line tension? That's the speed I want to fly at!


Cheers       Neville

What a talent...and a great flying model...That Chizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz n~ler!

[Alan Hahn]

Shame on you Ty! for mentioning Bart.
 I have ranted this before... bare with me on this while I capture this post

 In my lifetime....I SHALL NEVER FORGET seeing Bart Klapinski fly his winning 1967 Nats.
To many of us standing there  watching...Bart performance on both his flights was virtual perfection!
 In fact....I think we were safe in saying that BART'S flying was NOTICABLY UP ONTO A BRAND NEW LEVEL not seen during that 1967 Calif. national.
Taking in the fact that the Navy judging staff score sheets couldn't really illustrate that kind of excellence...I think they pretty much nailed the best flyers for the finals.

After years of reading Model Airplane magazine articles about the gaggle-gathering of iconic....what a rush it was to finally see so many of these ICONS flying the stunt pattern, up close and personal.
Talk about even a greater gift was that the nationals allowed so many of us nerd-de-well-wanna be stunt student addicts a worthy gather place to GO TO THE SCHOOL OF STUNT BIG TIME.
What a learning experience that week....watching these giants of R&R practice, starting at the crack of dawn...or listen to their "stunthanger talk" in that large brightly lighted Naval Hanger work shop during the night time hours.
TALK ABOUT TOY AIRPLANE TIME OVER LOAD!!!

One thing interests me---aren't those scores low compared to now??? 500 was top. Those Navy guys must have been pretty tough judges.

[Russell Shaffer]

I think I get the wing loading thing.  I have a couple of small-winged planes that will barely loop, much less corner.

[Neville Legg]

Looks like we got the spelling wrong Shultzzie!  There's only one Z in Chizler

Cheers      Neville

[Shultzie]

Looks like we got the spelling wrong Shultzzie!  There's only one Z in Chizler

Cheers      Neville

Thanks...I stand corrrrrrrrrrrected' I like that spullin' on my name Shultzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzie has a nice zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzing' to it? 
Cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzler?  

[Will Hinton]

I have to go with Doug M here - I fly a TP based ship at 5.7 to 5.8 laps on a total of 69' 8" with a 65 PA on the pipe using a CF three blade 13" with a 4.25 pitch.  It makes no difference whether the wind is up or down, the plane will do it all at those settings.  I was able to gain tension everywhere when I moved from a 12 1/2" prop to the 13".  (Same pitch.)  My rpms are in the 9.8K range, depending on the temp/pressure.
Will

[Ted Fancher]

IMHO flying stunt well does not permit slow lap times on nice days and faster ones in turbulent weather. Consistency is and always will be the name of the game. Since slow lap times can not succeed in turbulent conditions it is necessary to pick a fairly brisk speed to fly at regardless of the conditions.

In more than twenty years of competing with the best fliers in the world I do not think I have ever met anyone who was consistently successful while flying slow lap times. If I had to pick a range of all around useable lap times I would look in the range of 4.9 to 5.2 seconds per lap and not much slower. Can you fly slower? Sure!

In choosing a lap time bear in mind that it is the model which is doing the flying and not you! The model must be flown at a speed which will permit it to execute every manoeuvre as well as the last in all conditions without variance. That you "LIKE " to fly slow has little to do with successful mastery of the pattern. If your model is struggling at some point in the pattern you need to pick the lap speed up and learn to deal with it. Longer lines with the same lap speed will yield higher air speeds and make the model fly crisper manoeuvres.   

Kim.

Kim,

Well put.  I'll second that.

Ted

[Ted Fancher]

I have flown the whole pattern at 6 sec lap speed ( at near sea level) on my piped Cobra.  Had an incredible 2/4 break, and had all the power I needed when going vertical.  Having said that,
I was scored down for it as a judge told me after the contest.  Told me that it just didn't present well.  In order to get the lap speeds that slow, you need a light, straight plane and plenty of
"correct" power.  My electric Desperado flies at 5.4 to 5.5 no problem.

I have never been a fan of "slow" lap speeds.  It is difficult enough to fly properly shaped maneuvers (especially rounds) when the time necessary for each loop allows the flier to visualize the actual shape of the thing.  The slower you go the more difficult it is (IMHO) to picture the shape, especially from loop to loop.  My preference is to fly a pretty brisk but constant lap time at which the airplane is comfortably under control at all times with as little variation in speed in the maneuvers as possible.  This is where the high rev/low pitch thing (plus a pipe) on moodern, powerful schnerle ported engines really sold itself to me.  The newer eastern european engines seem to be getting very similar results through optimized timing which results in minimal power change with fuel and load variations.  Sort of like a really good Fox .35. The noise changes but not much else.

I reiterate Kim Doherty's remarks.  It's the airplane and engine combination that has to be happy.  Once you've made them happy play with line length to optimize the speed for you.  The only caveat is that if you try to fly that happy plane on such long lines that you lose tension you're not doing yourself any favors.

Ted

p.s.  Anything below 5.3 seems pretty pokey to me and 5.1 or so is very comfortable.

[Jim Kraft]

For me, I have a happy lap time, or a sweet spot. I do not care to much what my lap times actually are. When I am doing manuevers, if I do not feel rushed, or feel like I am waiting on the plane, I have it just right. My McCoy 40 R/H on my Magician does it about the best of all the planes I have had. Great line tension everywhere, and not rushed, or waiting anywhere in the pattern. If the plane is flying to slow, I seem to loose my timing.

[Rudy Taube]

FWIW: In my earlier post I said that I wanted to copy those that seem to know how to fly pretty good with  Lap times around 5.2, I mentioned that Paul flys at 5.2 and Dave looks close to that, I stated that "Paul and Dave are both World Champions and I think they have 16 National Championships between them."

Now with Ted's comments that he flys at 5.1, let me add Ted's 4 Nat's championships to the above and we have Two world champions and three guys with 20 USA National Championships between them, all flying around 5.2. (I can't confirm Dave's yet, but he looked around 5.2, I hope someone out there can confirm this?)

I don't mean to say that you have to be a champion to know what is best, there are exceptions in most things, but here the evidence seems to be overwhelming. Add a very experienced world class competitor and E power pioneer like Kim, and his sound logic and it is all more than enough for me to use these lap speeds .... at least until I have over 10,000 flights and a few BIG trophies, then I may try some other lap speed experiments? 

But, it does add spice to this hobby that there are those out there that are always willing to experiment and push the envelope. Without them we would all still be flying cranky/heavy spark ignition motors and using Ambroid glue! 

Regards, 

[Jim Kraft]

Now Rudy; What is wrong with Ambroid and spark ign. motors? My best planes were built with Ambroid, and are powered with old spark motors. I know, I know, some of us are just plain weird.

[Larry Fulwider]

I like to fly slow.  As slow as humanly possible and still have adequate line tension.  Pretty much standard type answer huh?

I fly my full sized 65 pa plane at a 5.85 lap time at a total length of 69'10".
. . .
 

51.5 MPH

I have to go with Doug M here - I fly a TP based ship at 5.7 to 5.8 laps on a total of 69' 8" with a 65 PA on the pipe using a CF three blade 13" with a 4.25 pitch . . .
. . .
Will

51.1 MPH

I have flown the whole pattern at 6 sec lap speed ( at near sea level) on my piped Cobra.  Had an incredible 2/4 break, and had all the power I needed when going vertical.  . . .

Line length? That would almost surely be even slower airspeed than Doug or Will

. . .  I see [Dick Mathis] must have done something right with his lightly loaded slow flying Chizzler, as he got 2nd in '67. I read that he had this model flying at 45mph, and obviously maintained line tension? . . .

 

Hmm. Documentation? Estimate? Guess?

. . . If you wish to purposely design an airplane for slower than 55 mph speeds, I think you are in virgin territory. . . .

Larry was wrong, at least for well designed / trimmed airplanes. We have two sound data points under 52 MPH – and on long lines too boot (smaller mv^2/r). We have unconfirmed even slower airspeeds. That would suggest, in Mythbuster terminology, that practical sub-55 MPH flight is CONFIRMED.

That implies, given typical body and model dimensions, lap times of 5.4 on 60 foot eye to eye lines, and 5.6 on 64 foot eye to eye lines are feasible. Clearly, not everyone agrees that slow 52 MPH flight is desirable.

Larry Fulwider

[Brett Buck]

Larry was wrong, at least for well designed / trimmed airplanes. We have two sound data points under 52 MPH – and on long lines too boot (smaller mv^2/r). We have unconfirmed even slower airspeeds. That would suggest, in Mythbuster terminology, that practical sub-55 MPH flight is CONFIRMED.

That implies, given typical body and model dimensions, lap times of 5.4 on 60 foot eye to eye lines, and 5.6 on 64 foot eye to eye lines are feasible. Clearly, not everyone agrees that slow 52 MPH flight is desirable.

Larry Fulwider

    This is an interesting thread, but I am a little confused by the tack it took. At the team trials I was running between 5.25 and about 5.4. With everything else, 5.4 is about 54 mph, and that doesn't seem too far off of anyone else. David is generally slightly slower with essentially the same line length, (and of course wing length and arm length). 5.4 is solid as far as tension goes, and 5.25 seems quite heavy to me.

    Doug it the only really good flier I know  in the speed range he is flying. Although I my 1998 Top 20 day flights beat him - 5.95 and 6.05! Good thing it was perfect air. Oh, and I note that I didn't get very good performance and finished 12th for the 3rd year in a row.

   And the last time I flew a bunch of flights in a row at 5.1 seconds I couldn't lift my arm above my head for a week!

   I don't even pay too much attention to it - as Ted notes, you set it until you feel comfortable, both with the tension and the control feel, and the acceleration of the engine, and it is what it is. The acceleration in the maneuvers it critical - when everything is right, even 4.5 can be quite comfortable, and seems like you have forever. The Skyray/20FP is like that - on the watch it's very fast, but its so predictable that it's like it's in slow motion. When the engine is too aggressive, 5.5 can feel too fast and be hard to deal with.

     Brett

[Rudy Taube]

Yikes! Larry,

I'm sorry, I meant no offense. No one ever said that slow could NOT be done. In fact many agreed that it is possible to fly a pattern at slow speeds.

My only point was that it seemed like a good idea for someone relatively new to CLPA (not CL) to do a little research, and look at what those with the most flights, most experience, and most success does, then learn from these successful people and copy them as much as possible if you want to succeed in competition. I think this is true in most human activities.

I thought I made it clear that experimentation is a good thing, it is one of the best ways to find the best way to do something. (not the ONLY way to do it, just the best way).

Where I fly we have a lot of wind and turbulence. For me, copying the top flyers has been a big help. I now fly in any wind or turbulence without a problem. Others are more than welcome to do what they want. I never said 5.0 to 5.2 lap times was the only speed. But I do have a lot of respect for those who have put in the incredible amount of time, effort, practice, travel, experimentation, and knowledge level required to be at the very top of their hobby/sport. Most of these men have excellent coaches behind them, and these coaches also have a lot of experience that they bring to the team. So what they use is usually the result of a lot of testing by more than one person.

So I feel that using their knowledge is a very good place for me to start. It does not mean that others that are flying very slow are doing it wrong, it just means that I choose to copy those that have been the most successful in competition. .... I'm also an ex combat flyer, so 5.0 seems plenty slow to me! 

I am aware of the group in our hobby that likes the tradition of flying like days of old when we had very weak felon fox power systems and most people flew very light (because there was no power up front) planes very slowly. I greatly admire those that could/can fly this way. I can't, I like having extra power and a very strong pull on the lines in all types of WX conditions.

By all means, keep flying slow, have fun, no one is trying to ban slow flying! Honest! 

Warm Regards, 

[Rudy Taube]

Now Rudy; What is wrong with Ambroid and spark ign. motors? My best planes were built with Ambroid, and are powered with old spark motors. I know, I know, some of us are just plain weird.

Hi Jim,

I knew when I wrote that, I would get in trouble, but I just couldn't help myself! 

Yes, we all miss the "High" old days of using Ambroid! 

The 1st CL plane I ever saw had an ignition engine. I admire those of you who have the skill, and the PATIENCE, to fly these national treasures. I'll bet you have written on your "large" tool box:
          "Glow plugs... we don't need no stinking Glow plugs"

I won't even ask you how you feel about ECL, CA and Monokote? 

Thanks for keeping the flame alive. 

Regards, 

[Larry Fulwider]

Yikes! Larry,

I'm sorry, I meant no offense. No one ever said that slow could NOT be done. In fact many agreed that it is possible to fly a pattern at slow speeds. . . .
. . .

Rudy –

Hah! The documentation of slower MPH was not intended as a direct response to your post. Actually, I agree with your point of view!

My view on the sub-55 (or thereabouts) flight is similar to Voltaire’s comment on attending orgies:

 “Once a philosopher; twice a pervert!”

It is OK to do the slow flight arithmetic, but that does not imply I want to live there.

That is, my experience, and others at my skill level, is that we have “problems” when we push the lap times too slow. My post was simply an admission that I was wrong since there are data contrary to my prejudices.  That doesn’t necessarily change my prejudices.

   Larry Fulwider

[John Stiles]

I remember a plane I saw at a contest years ago that was a scrawny looking model in clear dope.  The pilot was just as scrawny and looked like he just walked out of the outback, complete with Aussie hat.

The plane had a Fox35 on it and was absolutely the strangest running engine I had ever heard.  It ran like a hit and miss engine, running more on centrifugal force than combustion.

The entire pattern was in slow motion.  The plane would almost stop in midair before the engine burped a little power.  Every maneuver was performed that way.  How the model stayed out on the lines was a mystery.

The square corners were unbelievable and the triangles were dead solid with no skidding.  The flight used almost the complete 8 minutes and may even have run over.  I just don't know how he did it.

I did that once.....when I turned 30, I bought an old Ringmaster out of the want-ads....it was a doper, and had a .35 Fox engine. On the first flight, I tail-walked it two complete laps on 65' lines...about a foot from the ground. Finally it began to lean a little and leveled off, and I remember saying to myself how that I remembered CL planes flying a lot faster than that. I flew the plane like that at least 10 complete tanks before I took the engine apart............the next thing was totally a miracle. When I put it back together, I couldn't figure out which way to put the cylinder back in. So I just crammed it in there with a prayer. The very next flight I realized.........it had been in wrong before, because now it would take off in about 6' with a 9/6 nylon prop! In flight it felt like the lines might part. Needless to say the family was amazed at my ability to do really wild stunts!

[Matt Colan]

This is an extremely interesting thread that I have been following and just though i would stick my .02 cents in.

Like many people, I think it depends on the plane for how slow it can fly.  For instance, my Ares will fly at 5.0 to 5.1 and have line tension everywhere on 60ft eye to eye lines, so actually about 63ft lines, and it feels like it is flying slower than that, aroun 5.2.  my smoothie can fly at a fairly wide range of engine speeds.  I can fly a pattern with no feel of rushing or flying too slow.  We never really put a watch on it, but it is somewhere around 5.0 to 5.2.  The Brodak 40 can be revving at 8600 up to 9000, and the motor will still run fine, and the plane will still fly good at the slower speed.

I flew grandpa's F-14 and I got real good line tension at 5.4, and that plane weighs 58 ounces with an LA 46 in it.  So it depends on the plane, and how light it is and type of motor is in the plane.  With my oriental Plus, I hope to be flying around 5.3 to 5.4 comfortably.  We'll see...

[Will Hinton]

Mike McHenry of Indy won the advanced national championship flying "at the spped of a Spad" as Warren Tiahrt put it.  Mike is typically in the 6.0 range and is a very competent flyer, usually in the top group when he is able to compete.

[phil c]

Well of course my main motivation is to see if I can pry out some techniques.

If you look into the electric forum, or even gasp into the engineering forum, you can see that I have been spending some time trying to understand what our powerplants of interest are up too when we give them the tug on the up line and start a climb.

I am beginning to be convinced that power and props are not the whole story here, and that preserving the airplanes momentum into the climb is perhaps the biggest factor. Flying fast brings in more momentum in the first place, but preserving it or maintaining it is the trick.

Some of it --the flying slow part--may be to some extent a form of optical illusion, I am not sure how much though.

But I do think it is just a powerful image to see a plane "slowly" enter a square corner--not looking hurried--and see it climb "effortlessly" and gracefully upward. I am just unclear how to do that.

Alan, you've got two competing things going on.  Lap times really mean nothing.  It is just a quick way to check if the motor is flying the same speed as the last flight.

The two factors are getting enough line tension to minimize the sag in the lines, so they don't whip the plane around in sharp maneuvers.  The second factor is to keep the speed low enough to fly comfortably.  Most people seem to like flying at 52mph(5.0 sec on 60ft lines, 5.3 sec on 65 ft), give or take a couple miles an hour.  60 mph is considered very fast(4.3 sec in 60 ft lines, 5.3 sec on 65ft.).

Then you can use LineIII or one of the other calculators to figure the line tension.  From experience, 015x60 lines need about 9 lb. of tension, and 018 x 65 need about 12 lb.  which are about what you get from a 48oz and 60oz planes at 52 mph.  Not too surprising, since those are the plane weights most flyer gravitate to for those sizes of lines.

If you want to fly slower you need a bigger, heavier plane with more power to get sufficient line tension.  There is nothing worse than trying to get an overweight, underpowered, slow plane over the top.

[Rudy Taube]

Hi Phil,

I'm glad you weighed in on this. I have always read everything you write. With all your combat experience, both flying and with equipment, you have always been a big help to those of us who are trying to learn more about CL! 

Thank you for the line pull pound #s for different weights., speeds and line sizes. Now I know why Eric Rule said his arm almost fell off when he flew my 63 oz plane on 64' e to e lines @ 4.9 lap times!    ...... (I think I had a little right thrust too!)

Snip ".......Most people seem to like flying at 52mph(5.0 sec on 60ft lines, 5.3 sec on 65 ft), give or take a couple miles an hour.  60 mph is considered very fast(4.3 sec in 60 ft lines, 5.3 sec (did you mean 4.6 sec?) on 65ft.). ...." Snip

RE: your quote above. I have a few questions. I only ask so that I can make sure the formulas in my spreadsheet are correct.

1. When you say "line length 65 ft" do you mean eye to eye?

2.  or do you mean total AMA rule length? center of handle to center of plane's fuselage? (which means that the max eye to eye line length can be 66 feet 10 inches, less if your using a handle with cables)

3. or do you mean center of rotation (usually our  chest at the shoulder, the way most of us fly) to the center of the plane's fuselage? This is the only dimension we can use when computing speed from lap times. (unless you have very accurate on board speed sensing equipment ;-)

To get total length, on a 60" WS plane, I use: 30" center of fuselage to wing tip + 4" lead outs + 1" clip + eye to eye lines (65') + 1" clip + 2" handle (my Morris/direct) + 24" arm = 70 feet 2 inches ..... (this may not be totally accurate, but pretty close)

In my SS earlier on this subject I gave the eye to eye line length but used #3 above to compute the speeds. 

I think there is a lot of confusion on the actual speeds of our planes on different lines and at different lap times because many of the charts that were published in the past did not use center of rotation to the center of fuse dimensions in their creation. I only ask the above so that we can all make sure we are using the same #s.

Thanks again for the force #s 

Regards 

[Larry Fulwider]

. . .
. . .
3. or do you mean center of rotation (usually our  chest at the shoulder, the way most of us fly) to the center of the plane's fuselage? This is the only dimension we can use when computing speed from lap times. (unless you have very accurate on board speed sensing equipment ;-)

To get total length, on a 60" WS plane, I use: 30" center of fuselage to wing tip + 4" lead outs + 1" clip + eye to eye lines (65') + 1" clip + 2" handle (my Morris/direct) + 24" arm = 70 feet 2 inches ..... (this may not be totally accurate, but pretty close)
. . .
. . .

Rudy –

Right or wrong, your spreadsheets are identical to mine – except for the arm length constant  . Phil’s 60 foot numbers appear to agree with the method used to check the times in slow combat for legality – specifically, that is your formula minus arm length. So Phil’s 52 MPH is closer to our 55 MPH (I think). (Note that our formulae are totally impractical for slow combat purposes.)

I used Will Hinton’s and Doug Moon’s line lengths as if they “added up out” like your formula (when I calculated their speeds), and neither flinched.

Thanks for including your formula. It does re-emphasize that all of us have to be careful, and quite specific, in communicating either lap times or airspeed – or we can easily mislead one another.

   Larry Fulwider

[PatRobinson]

Hi Larry,

There is one element that complicates the picture. I and many other flyers walk backwards in a small circle rather than standing in the middle and rotating in place. This creates a mild whipping action which increases line tension but it would also seem to complicate your line length/speed computation.

To me airplane speed is in 2 parts 1. lap time is the "perceived speed" to the pilot 2. mph is the speed the airplane's aerodynamic elements are affected by. To me any "perceived speed" faster than 5.3 lap time is not enjoyable and for me personally is a waste of time, so my goal is to have a plane whose aerodynamics are happy at some line length that provides a perceived speed I am happy with. If the day came, I had to fly 5.1 lap times, is the day I would quit stunt, but it is doubtful I will ever reach top level competition so it is probably a moot point.

The most beautiful patterns I have ever watched were slow, crisp and precise rather than a more slam-bam apperance of faster patterns. Each leg of each square manuever took longer which emphasized each turn , each loop seemed somehow more graceful.  As a judge I will award scores equally to a fast pattern where the flyer rotates cleanly and flatly out of of a square or triangle and traces accurate round maunevers and I will also ding a slow pattern that is imprecise,not crisp or wanders all over the sky --- but it is the great slow patterns I most enjoy as a spectator.
It is the slow patterns that have given me my most enjoyable time in the hobby and is my own personal quest that has kept me in this hobby.
                                                                 Pat Robinson

[Alan Hahn]

I should comment that one motivation of my question was a comment in a thread either in StuntHangar or SSW about how electric power planes fly so much faster than glow powered planes. I commented in that thread that electric, by its nature, doesn't have to fly particularly fast, and maybe it was just a perception question by the people who were making the comment--and none ha actual measured nubers. But I began to think about it--admittedly a dangerous thing to do  , and wondered if I was flying particularly fast. Like I said at the beginning of this thread, my lap speeds typically range from 5.0 to 5.2 s a lap, and my lines (handle to plane center) are 62-64 feet long.

Now I do time my own laps, basically just to check for consistency, but I what feels comfortable to me for the particular plane. But maybe there was some technique others use to slow the laps down. I am not in the habit of timing other's laps unless asked to do so --usually during a trimming flight. So at a contest for example, what appears slow to me as an observer might not really be that slow if I had timed it.

From the many responses, it sounds like the majority tend to fly lap times similar to what I am flying, so maybe it is just a perception issue.

[Peter Nevai]

I like to fly slow.  As slow as humanly possible and still have adequate line tension.  Pretty much standard type answer huh?

I fly my full sized 65 pa plane at a 5.85 lap time at a total length of 69'10". 

As you know there are special setups for each model where they perform to their highest potential.  In my model's case it is a low drag wing with a fairly aft cg using large flying surfaces with minimal deflections.  Couple that with a very low pitch prop at a high rpm setting (in a constant 4 cycle throughout the flight) and you have a combination for good line tension at low speeds.

You have to have the right collection of variables to create this situation. 

The plane needs to be light weight.  This always makes it easier.

I could not agree more. Over the years I've seen people put in stunning flights with some awedome looking airplanes, flying so slow you could swear I t would fall out of the sky. Ibstead of a blur going by you couls see every individuak part of every manuever. It made the pattern that much graceful and enjoyable to watch. When the trend to bigger motors and planes became popular I was expecting to see more of those splendid slow flights, but while the bigger plane was easier to see and made for a slicker presentation, the flights remained pretty much a blur.

The plane is low drag.  That means I can use a low pitch, 3.5 all the way out, and still have enough drive to get through the maneuvers.  If the plane were a more high drag model it would require more pitch to drive through corners that want to slow the model down.  Thus probably demanding more over all speed.  Aft cg along with large flying surfaces will only require small deflections to get the desired corner.  This is also low drag.  The low pitch prop will work here just fine. 

The very low pitch prop will be a HUGE brake on the front of the plane.  It will hit a speed and stop.  It simply wont go faster.  The low drag and low pitch allow the motor to run at high rpms but still remain in a very forgiving and stable 4 cycle.   In fact it is delivering tons of torque in that high rpm 4 cycle which is contributing the slow flying because it gives such solid even line tension everywhere in the hemisphere. 

There is no secret to flying slow.  It is just that not many people do it.  So in many cases trying to slow down and fly at speeds "outside of the stunt box" will put you on your own.

What I find curious is that over the past several years 5-7 there has been a move to 5.0-4.8 times on full lines.  This with the addition of new bigger motors.  This makes no sense to me as the pattern will always be easier to fly when flown as slow as can be with solid line tension.  It will be easier to stay ahead of the model and make proper pullouts and find intersections. 

It just is.   

[Alan Hahn]

I'm reminded of George Aldrich's comment in his Nobler article (MAN?) that slow flying is harder because the judges can see your mistakes easier!

So I guess the ease of maneuvering goes both ways. Of course he was comparing his speeds to the old pattern flying techniques I think.

[Russell Shaffer]

I love it, Alan.  I feel better at higher speeds even though my maneuvers are even worse.  With my flying skills I'm way better off leaving the judges wondering what just happened.  If they know for sure, I've got a problem. Just ask Steve Helmick. 

[W.D. Roland]

Have been checking this thread several times a day.
and thinking........................

And slowly making an airplane work.

Saturday clocked the Chipmunk/OS35 at 5.34 sec lap.
This felt to slow as would get a wobble on square corners sometimes.
Airplane was hinging(? term) on overheads so removed 1/2oz tip weight.
This also cured 90% of the wobble in squares corners.
Still a small amount of hinging overhead with line tension getting borderline.

Apparently was rolling out and then "springing" back with G load changes.

This may go out the window when the C.G. gets moved back.(next change)

Things that should always be true.
Vertical up lines depend on high power(thrust) to low weight ratio.

Maintaining speed in maneuvers like horizontal 8s where 1/2 of manuver is down hill mostly
need a low wing loading. good power to weight always helps.

Long way to go still

Lighter must be better.

[Ted Fancher]

I'm reminded of George Aldrich's comment in his Nobler article (MAN?) that slow flying is harder because the judges can see your mistakes easier!

So I guess the ease of maneuvering goes both ways. Of course he was comparing his speeds to the old pattern flying techniques I think.

Good points, Alan.  I wrote many a time back when I was doing columns that I generally scored better with a faster flight than I did a slower one (often at the same contest back in the Tiger .46 days).  If a guy's sitting out there counting your boo boos you'd better not give him any more time than necessary to do so!  And, again, at least in my case, it is much easier to fly repeating shapes if the airspeed is constant and events happen quickly enough for a little visual retention to be operative.  In my opinion that's easier at a quicker pace than at a slower one.

On the other hand, I agree entirely with Brett's comments regarding Dougie Moon's patterns.  Clearly, the visualization thing isn't an issue with Doug.  He pretty much gets it right at speeds that would put yours truly  to sleep.

Ted

[Chris McMillin]

Have been checking this thread several times a day.
and thinking........................

And slowly making an airplane work.

Saturday clocked the Chipmunk/OS35 at 5.34 sec lap.
This felt to slow as would get a wobble on square corners sometimes.
Airplane was hinging(? term) on overheads so removed 1/2oz tip weight.
This also cured 90% of the wobble in squares corners.
Still a small amount of hinging overhead with line tension getting borderline.

Apparently was rolling out and then "springing" back with G load changes.

This may go out the window when the C.G. gets moved back.(next change)

Things that should always be true.
Vertical up lines depend on high power(thrust) to low weight ratio.

Maintaining speed in maneuvers like horizontal 8s where 1/2 of manuver is down hill mostly
need a low wing loading. good power to weight always helps.

Long way to go still

Lighter must be better.

Try a little engine offset and see if those overheads don't get a bit more tension.
Chris...

[W.D. Roland]

Thanks Chris.
Going to play with the line rake first as I am at the limit of adjustment on the aluminum engine mounting plate.
Need to see how it reacts to the rake adjustment any way.
Will need more rake when C.G is moved back.?
Need to see what it does with (more)rudder also but that would add drag as well.

Might have to speed things up a little but the slow is nice--I like slow. I am slow.

David

[john e. holliday]

The more you fly the slower the plane will become.  We used to fly 1/2A Combat Kittens on 35 foot lines just for grins.  Then fly the stunt plane,  Amazing how slow it seemed.  Same with the combat planes of the day. 

[Doug Moon]

Good points, Alan.  I wrote many a time back when I was doing columns that I generally scored better with a faster flight than I did a slower one (often at the same contest back in the Tiger .46 days).  If a guy's sitting out there counting your boo boos you'd better not give him any more time than necessary to do so!  And, again, at least in my case, it is much easier to fly repeating shapes if the airspeed is constant and events happen quickly enough for a little visual retention to be operative.  In my opinion that's easier at a quicker pace than at a slower one.

On the other hand, I agree entirely with Brett's comments regarding Dougie Moon's patterns.  Clearly, the visualization thing isn't an issue with Doug.  He pretty much gets it right at speeds that would put yours truly  to sleep.

Ted

One cant just fly slow and then fast with the same trim and motor setups.  That is the first thing that has to be decided on.  The plane and motor wont perform well in both speed ranges with the same setup.  It will either be very good at the faster speeds, 5.1 5.0, or very good at medium speeds 5.35-545, or very good at slower speeds 5.65-5.80.  It may feel pretty good at all the speeds but it will perform best at one range.  And you will too.  

The trim is setup for the flight speed.  It isnt a matter of turning the needle in and out.  As most know the needle sets the mix and the prop the speed.  Not the other way around.  

I have my 65 from my nats plane that generally flys a 5.80 lap time with corresponding maneuver speeds in my newest plane.  That plane is requiring a completely different prop during its initial flights.  The super flat pitch at 3.5 from the other plane wont move it faster than 6.10 and that is not going to cut it.  It needs to go faster at first while I get the balances setup and the CG in the right spot.  The pitch on the prop is up and the flight speed is up, 5.50 maybe, and the plane seems to like it.  But the motor run is horrid and my initial flights, just 8 so far, are miserable examples of flying.  

I got a ways to go but I think I can get it back to the 5.80 speeds.  

It is all in the trim.  I have had people fly my plane who fly around 5.10-5.40 and they say afterword the trim is nice and it is very solid everywhere they go they just have more time.

You take a 5.40 plane and just slow the motor down with the needle so it will fly slower and it will be a mess for sure and your judges will crush you all day.  But you get the strong motor run and the trim right you all of a sudden have a model that is in good trim but just going slower.  That will always give you more time to get it correct.  You can get your mind way ahead of the plane and really begin to see the whole maneuver as you fly it.  For me it feels like proactive flying instead of reactive flying.  It really helps when trying to get the over all geometry correct.  

Note: It always has to appear to be on rails.  That is how you avoid getting kicked by the judges when you fly slow or fast.  But it is much more noticeable when people fly slow because planes tend to "flop" or "hinge" here and there and they look under powered.  

That is just my .02 on it.  

Now anyone got any ideas on how to get tail weight out of a plane.....I got issues.....big ones...

[Howard Rush]

My airplane gets soggy at 5.4.  I am impressed at how you can go so slow.

Have you tried a carbon tank to lighten the nose? 

[Howard Rush]

Hold on.  By tail weight, do you mean ballast that you had to put in to get the CG back or is the airplane tailheavy?  A carbon tank could still be the solution.  If it's the former, you want a Fitzgerald-Tichy tank.  If it's the latter, you want one of mine. 

[Doug Moon]

Hold on.  By tail weight, do you mean ballast that you had to put in to get the CG back or is the airplane tailheavy?  A carbon tank could still be the solution.  If it's the former, you want a Fitzgerald-Tichy tank.  If it's the latter, you want one of mine. 

It is tail heavy.  I made a mistake when building it.  If i use the built up covered stab I put the nose at 9".  If I use the foam sheeted stab I am supposed to put the nose about 9.75-10".  I used the foam for stiffness and 9" moment.  OUCH!!  I need weight out of the tail. Or weigh in the nose. 

[Will Hinton]

I heartly agree with Doug's approach to the 5.8 lap times.  I have switched from a 4 pitch, 12.5" three blade to a 4.25 pitch and got the airplane down from 5.5's to 5.7's with a happier engine run. Then, after nicking a prop in Dayton two years ago the only thing I had with me was a 13 X 4.25.  I had no choice but to use it, and I hit my 5.7 lap time but had even better tension throughout the pattern.  Really solid on top and more consistent everywhere.
Now fpr two years my faithful old 65 is happily cranking out exactly what I want.  Maybe my patterns aren't expert class yet, but others are giving me hints that the dreaded "moving up" time is rapidly approaching and the scores have increased much more rapidly with the slower pattern speeds.
Will

[john e. holliday]

Doug you may not like this idea, but, a dremel tool and ex-acto knife do wonders at removing unwanted wood.  Hate to see you ruin a gorgeous finish tho.

[phil c]

Hi Phil,


1. When you say "line length 65 ft" do you mean eye to eye?

2.  or do you mean total AMA rule length? center of handle to center of plane's fuselage? (which means that the max eye to eye line length can be 66 feet 10 inches, less if your using a handle with cables)

3. or do you mean center of rotation (usually our  chest at the shoulder, the way most of us fly) to the center of the plane's fuselage? This is the only dimension we can use when computing speed from lap times. (unless you have very accurate on board speed sensing equipment ;-)


In my SS earlier on this subject I gave the eye to eye line length but used #3 above to compute the speeds. 

I think there is a lot of confusion on the actual speeds of our planes on different lines and at different lap times because many of the charts that were published in the past did not use center of rotation to the center of fuse dimensions in their creation. I only ask the above so that we can all make sure we are using the same #s.

Thanks again for the force #s 

Regards 

I appreciate your opinion Rudy, hopefully stuff I write helps people out.

I always use the AMA line length.  Its purpose is only to give a consistent calculation from plane to plane and time to time.  That is what the airplane sees.  Adding in arm length etc. confuses things, since a good pilot often uses a lot of arm and body action to help the plane along through the tight spots.  So it is impossible to calculate a truly accurate speed, and not really needed.

The plane really only sees the drag(rake) of the lines and the swinging of the line weight around in maneuvers.  This can really screw up a plane if, as Doug points out, it is flying slower than its comfort zone.  This effect is really easy to see when you get a slow engine run.  The lines bend back, the plane wants to come in on the RWO unless you whip it through, the square maneuvers are very hard to keep smooth because the plane rocks around as the lines swing through the corner.  The 8 intersections get screwed up by the plane lollygagging around in during the control reversal.

The other critical factor is the pilot's comfort zone for speed.  After skimming the ground in numerous outside square and triangles I can state unequivocally that if the plane is going too fast for you you will crash.  If the plane/prop/conditions permit the slower the better.  There is a noticeable difference in the reaction time required between a 5.3 lap and a 4.9 lap on the same plane, or between flying the same plane/lines in a 5mph breeze or a 15mph breeze.

[Alan Hahn]

ahhhh,
now the secrets are coming out

[John Sunderland]

IMHO flying stunt well does not permit slow lap times on nice days and faster ones in turbulent weather. Consistency is and always will be the name of the game. Since slow lap times can not succeed in turbulent conditions it is necessary to pick a fairly brisk speed to fly at regardless of the conditions.

In more than twenty years of competing with the best fliers in the world I do not think I have ever met anyone who was consistently successful while flying slow lap times. If I had to pick a range of all around useable lap times I would look in the range of 4.9 to 5.2 seconds per lap and not much slower. Can you fly slower? Sure!

In choosing a lap time bear in mind that it is the model which is doing the flying and not you! The model must be flown at a speed which will permit it to execute every manoeuvre as well as the last in all conditions without variance. That you "LIKE " to fly slow has little to do with successful mastery of the pattern. If your model is struggling at some point in the pattern you need to pick the lap speed up and learn to deal with it. Longer lines with the same lap speed will yield higher air speeds and make the model fly crisper manoeuvres.   

Kim.

Very well put. We are talking tenths of seconds here. 5.1 and 5.2 were norms for conventional 4-2-4 stunt engine runs. I learned to be comfortable as fast as 4.9 and 5.0. depending on the airplane. Lap times  of 5.3 to 5.6 just gives a little extra time and took me a good bit to get used to. Any way you slice it, presentation with a crisp flow looks good. Doug  Moons bird looks like it is taking  forever but the execution of each and every turn  simply looks good. His deal works well and I am surprised more guys havent copied his set-up. Of course the lack of four blade props could account for that.