Author Topic: New Designs in CL (Read 5304 times)

IdRatherBeBuilding · « **on:** February 10, 2019, 07:11:56 PM »

Are there any new designs in CL? Not just building techniques, but full fledged modern planes.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #1 on:** February 10, 2019, 07:15:57 PM »

Quote from: IdRatherBeBuilding on February 10, 2019, 07:11:56 PM

Are there any new designs in CL? Not just building techniques, but full fledged modern planes.

New as of when?

IdRatherBeBuilding · « **Reply #2 on:** February 10, 2019, 07:26:58 PM »

This year. Or does anyone work on prototypes of their own designs?
Is there a class for that?

Brett Buck · « **Reply #3 on:** February 10, 2019, 07:48:49 PM »

Quote from: IdRatherBeBuilding on February 10, 2019, 07:26:58 PM

This year. Or does anyone work on prototypes of their own designs?
Is there a class for that?

Sort of, its called AMA Open or PAMPA Expert. The vast, vast majority of competitive airplanes from national competitors are new or original designs.

David Fitzgerald - Thundergazer
Paul Walker - Thunderbolt
Chris Cox - Hellcat
Richard Oliver - Maverick
some random moron - Infinity

etc. Others use well-developed designs from other top competitors, nothing wrong with it, but most people are both too picky and too egocentric to fly something completely unmodified

People tend to develop designs over many years through evolution, so, for example, the "new" airplane I am probably going to fly at the NATs this year is an evolution of a design I started in 1990, and arguably, it's an evolution of an airplane designed by Ted Fancher in 1978. It's like the Ship Of Theseus paradox. You have a broom, one year, you replace the bristles, the next year, you replace the handle - is it the same broom? If I start with a ST46 profile in 1978:

replace the fuselage
replace the tail
replace the wing and change to an OS40VF < this is where I think the current design started in 1991
change the fuselage again
change the flaps
change to a PA40
change to alter the hinge lines
change the tail
change to a PA61
change the tail again
change the control system geometry
change to a RO-Jett 61

is it the same design? It's hard to tell where to draw the line.

The era of wild experimentation ended in the early 50's, so they tend to all be very close to each other, with most of the differences in the detail rather than in the large. You won't see a lot of canard triplanes, etc. So, even if you have the "new" design, it might not leap out at you as "new".

Brett

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #4 on:** February 10, 2019, 07:51:42 PM »

A canard triplane! Why didn't I think of that?

Well, except that I hate building wings...

Brett Buck · « **Reply #5 on:** February 10, 2019, 07:57:33 PM »

Quote from: Tim Wescott on February 10, 2019, 07:51:42 PM

A canard triplane! Why didn't I think of that?

Well, except that I hate building wings...

An autogyro for you, then.

Brett

Mike Griffin · « **Reply #6 on:** February 10, 2019, 08:27:54 PM »

Quote from: Brett Buck on February 10, 2019, 07:57:33 PM

An autogyro for you, then.

Brett

Believe it or not Brett, Otto the Giro (Gyro) was the biggest selling kit I ever produced. Eric Rule and I both thought when I came out with it that I might sell two. Boy were we wrong. I can tell you this though for a fact, they do not glide worth a damn.

Mike

john e. holliday · « **Reply #7 on:** February 10, 2019, 08:40:56 PM »

Especially when the rotor departs the shaft.

Mark Mc · « **Reply #8 on:** February 10, 2019, 10:42:03 PM »

Quote from: Brett Buck on February 10, 2019, 07:57:33 PM

An autogyro for you, then.

Brett

Hmmm A Tri-Gyro?

Mark

IdRatherBeBuilding · « **Reply #9 on:** February 10, 2019, 11:43:29 PM »

Ok, I just signed up to PAMPA and added the paper copy of the magazine.
Sorry if my question was quite ignorant, but I really had no idea CL is progressing today. That News Really makes my evening. I used to read about CL in Model Aviation. But that was in the 80s and 90s.
I've been flying on and off since then, but it was all RC models. I just can't get into RC anymore. Every plane at the field is an ARF. And now it seems more like a past time than a hobby.
Well, enough with my ranting. I feel like a kid again with this new discovery of all you guys out there still building and designing your own planes! I just cant wipe the smile off my face!

David Miller

Dave Hull · « **Reply #10 on:** February 11, 2019, 02:13:13 AM »

David,

Welcome back. We like to see guys building stuff.

And if you are feeling down, then go look at Joe Hildreth's thread on his FW-190-Dx scratchbuild. That might make your day.

Dave

Frank Imbriaco · « **Reply #11 on:** February 11, 2019, 09:10:33 AM »

Hunt Skunkworks

Brett Buck · « **Reply #12 on:** February 11, 2019, 09:24:10 AM »

Quote from: IdRatherBeBuilding on February 10, 2019, 11:43:29 PM

Ok, I just signed up to PAMPA and added the paper copy of the magazine.
Sorry if my question was quite ignorant, but I really had no idea CL is progressing today. That News Really makes my evening. I used to read about CL in Model Aviation. But that was in the 80s and 90s.
I've been flying on and off since then, but it was all RC models. I just can't get into RC anymore. Every plane at the field is an ARF. And now it seems more like a past time than a hobby.
Well, enough with my ranting. I feel like a kid again with this new discovery of all you guys out there still building and designing your own planes! I just cant wipe the smile off my face!

It wasn't a bad question - how are you going to know if you don't ask? But designing/building/flying is what we do, that's the nature of the event. Essentially, we are still doing exactly like they did it since about 1950, with improved technology.

Brett

Ken Culbertson · « **Reply #13 on:** February 11, 2019, 11:33:24 AM »

Everything goes back to the Nobler, which if memory serves me was a modified Chief which I think was a modified Go-Devil or something like that and that was an improved...... Find something you can fly then make it look like what you like and paint it in colors your wife chooses and there will be peace in the universe.

My own "Original" design turned out to be a functional clone of an Imitation. I had never even heard of an Imitation when I designed it and the only part of it that was really original was the way I laid out the various things I copied from someone else. Once upon a time there were 10 points of your score dedicated to "Originality" I don't think there were 2 judges that agreed on what that meant in spite of what the rule book said, and thankfully that is gone.

Electric is slowly changing things. Without a pipe to deal with, fuselage designs are less of a problem and twins become a more realistic choice.
But that is just me, and I could be wrong!

Ken

IdRatherBeBuilding · « **Reply #14 on:** February 11, 2019, 11:34:49 AM »

Thanks you guys.
There is just something about modelers. The discipline builds character and humility.
Is there a section here on the latest designs? I checked a couple time but I must have passed it over.

David Miller

Frank- Thanks for the tip on Skunkworks. I'll look them up!

IdRatherBeBuilding · « **Reply #15 on:** February 11, 2019, 11:38:15 AM »

"Find something you can fly then make it look like what you like and paint it in colors your wife chooses and there will be peace in the universe."

Words of wisdom Ken!

David Miller

Ken Culbertson · « **Reply #16 on:** February 11, 2019, 11:48:46 AM »

Quote from: IdRatherBeBuilding on February 11, 2019, 11:38:15 AM

"Find something you can fly then make it look like what you like and paint it in colors your wife chooses and there will be peace in the universe."

Words of wisdom Ken!

David Miller

I just thought of something that illustrated this to a "T". There is a thread out there called "Show Us Your Twister"

https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/show-us-your-twisters/msg538930/#msg538930

Check it out (great practice plane)

Ken

Steve Helmick · « **Reply #17 on:** February 11, 2019, 12:52:09 PM »

There is indeed a "Design" forum and also an "Engineering" forum here....#26 & #27 if I counted correctly, as you progress down the list.

I would ask where our OP Dave Miller is located, because we had a Dave Miller here in the NW...Tri-cities area. Lots of Millers, to be sure, but had to ask. It's always a good thing to put your city/state in your profile and nobody has reported problems from doing so. Your new flying buddy could be just down the road a piece. Better yet, he may have found a good flying site.

Steve

IdRatherBeBuilding · « **Reply #18 on:** February 11, 2019, 01:36:42 PM »

I did notice the engineering section. I started a thread yesterday about dihedral. Apparently that's a bigger topic than I expected. Lots of Really interesting replies.
I'll dig in further on those sections. The Design and the Engineering.
I've always been very passionate over the older designs. Can't understand what took me so long to build one. But I'm very curious about the progression too.

Thanks for the link Ken Culbertson.
I think I need to move my computer away from my build bench. I finally found some time to sit and build. But all this new info is addicting.

Steve Helmick-
No, I can't be that David Miller. I grew up in Hawaii, but I am in Utah right now. I moved out here a few years ago to spend some time with my father.
There are quite a bit of us David Millers out there. My good friend in high school was David Miller and there was still another David Miller attending our school at the same time. I guess it is quite a generic name.

David Miller

Istvan Travnik · « **Reply #19 on:** February 11, 2019, 03:38:16 PM »

Dear Tim,
You think you started a joke with triplanes.
Take a look at the planes of a modern F3A (FAI pattern R/C) aerobatic World Championships: you will find more triplanes than biplanes. Or "2-and-a-half" planes. As ugly appearanced as can be: you will cry...
Istvan.

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #20 on:** February 11, 2019, 03:46:22 PM »

Quote from: Istvan Travnik on February 11, 2019, 03:38:16 PM

Dear Tim,
You think you started a joke with triplanes.
Take a look at the models of a modern F3A (FAI pattern R/C) aerobatic World Championships' planes: you will find more triplanes than biplanes. Or "2-and-a-half" planes. As ugly appearanced as can be: you will cry...
Istvan.

Brett gets full credit for the first mention of triplane canards. I just picked up the ball and ran with it.

I just found a site selling F3A planes. Those poor things! That sort of genetic experimentation should be illegal! I gather that the emphasis these days is on fast rolls and knife-edge flight, and possibly fast straight-ahead (although the teeny wings may go with a super-light structure).

Istvan Travnik · « **Reply #21 on:** February 11, 2019, 03:55:33 PM »

As I see,
the best seller's fuselage looks like a minnow. A big, faaaaaat minnow...

Jim Carter · « **Reply #22 on:** February 11, 2019, 04:30:37 PM »

Quote from: IdRatherBeBuilding on February 11, 2019, 11:34:49 AM

.... builds character and humility .....

!! Yeah .... 'dat ain't no joke!!

IdRatherBeBuilding · « **Reply #23 on:** February 11, 2019, 06:56:34 PM »

I agree about the "new" turn around pattern style airplanes. The design melded into the pattern which was flying much slower than the previous pattern of pre-turn around.

I actually was curious of "modern" designs because of what happened in F3A. The classics of pattern made a big come back this past decade and I was as involved as I could be living over seas. We were limited with designs of the past, which are great models but no one was making new, old or classic pattern designs. I tried to explain that all we have to do is bring back the old flight pattern of pre-turn around and lift the restrictions of past dated designs so enthusiasts can progress with a new class in classic pattern. Actually back then, we voted and decided to call it Ballistic Pattern Association or BPA. But a few guys started turning the whole movement into a bussiness for profit. I don't mind businesses popping up and making a few bucks. That is what really helps anything grow. But when politics driven by profits are introduced, it strangles the possibilities for some possitive growth. These old kits were selling over 1500. So the greed really took over and changed the spirit of a growing class.
It's nice to see CL being inclusive in every possible way for everyone to enjoy. That probably why CL is still very active today.

Here's one of my favorites. F3A looked so similar to the stunt planes back then

David Miller

Dan McEntee · « **Reply #24 on:** February 11, 2019, 09:51:00 PM »

The airplanes keep changing in R/C Pattern because they keep changing Pattern! Control line stunt has pretty much stayed the same since the new pattern came about back in 1953, but technology has obviously advanced at a great rate, and we have taken advantage of that to advance the event to several levels over the years. Power plants have also been the real obvious advance, and a great diversity in types of power plants.. There is something out there for everyone to like. We have figured out all sorts of stuff to help make the older designs and engines fly better, like in Classic and Old time, and even ignition engines benefit form advanced technology that make them a bit easier to deal with so more can experience it. The models in the modern PAMPA classes, ranging from beginner to expert, can include examples from the whole history of stunt at some regional contests. The top fliers in the Expert class get there not necessarily because of some new advanced design, they get there because of picking a design and power plant that suits their style and comforts, and then making adjustments to make it their own, and then fly countless flights in practice while watching every little detail for a change or needed correction. It's almost constant study of several areas. The models today are a far cry away from the lines that George Aldrich drew on some brown paper to build his first Noblers. Some say that they are basically the same thing, but nothing can be further from the truth. But there is still a connection, and they are part of the evolution from then to now. If you squint your eyes a bit while looking at some of them, you can probably see the influence that George had, though. But what I like about the control line stunt event is it can be whatever you make of it. Put in the time , money and effort for the Walker Cup, or just head to the local contest to put up a few flights with your buddies to see how you stand, and how that last head shim affected your engine run. The basic pattern has not changed, but so much that revolves around it has, and sometimes a lot of people fail to see that, and feel the need to change the pattern and/or the way the event is run. If that had ever been allowed to happen at any time in the last 50 years or so, I really don't think we would be where we are today. Yes, attendance is down and all of that, but it could have all dried up and blown away years ago. At least now we still have an event that we all can relate to in some way. I am flying in the event I wanted to fly in ever since I was a kid and couldn't afford it. I'm glad it waited around for me to catch up to it so I could have some fun with it!
Type at you later,
Dan McEntee

RC Storick · « **Reply #25 on:** February 12, 2019, 03:06:14 AM »

I can't remember the year at the NATS but a guy was flying a tri-plane with tri-engines, and if you had observed it operate, it has the best corner I have ever seen. The pilot needed more practice to make is present well. But the layout was similar to the Wtiteflyer with aero shafts as the aft fuse. It was a fascinating concept.

He did not fair well in competition because of two factors lack of practice and the odd concept.

Bob Hunt · « **Reply #26 on:** February 12, 2019, 05:42:24 AM »

Quote from: Frank Imbriaco on February 11, 2019, 09:10:33 AM

Hunt Skunkworks

Hi David:

What Frank is referring to is my Robin's View Productions company. We are listed in the Vendors section here, and do offer plans for my original designs. Also offered are foam, and lost-foam wing systems, and other assorted items.

As far as new designs are concerned, yes, there are many. But, as has also been noted here, many of them are actually just styling exercises on "proven" numbers. I've often written that the aerodynamic "numbers" can be looked at as a "mannequin," just like one in a store window. And onto that mannequin of numbers we can drape almost any type of "clothing" we desire. Certainly there have been many "original" designs crafted onto the numbers of the ubiquitous Nobler. This, again, is not actual designing, but, rather styling.

Of course each of us tweak the numbers of our stylized designs over time, so I guess we are doing some actual designing after all. But sticking to some proven stunt mannequins will enable you to have something unique looking while still being assured to a degree that it will also fly well. All bets are off when you go far afield with something like an ornithopter, canard, pusher triplane, amphibian...

Here are a few of my "originals." They represent more than 50 years of designing and styling efforts. Plans for a few of these are available.

Hope this helps - Bob Hunt

Bob Hunt · « **Reply #27 on:** February 12, 2019, 07:26:35 AM »

Hi again, David:

Here are a few more originals. One of them is most certainly not a Nobler clone...

Later - Bob Hunt

Doug Moon · « **Reply #28 on:** February 12, 2019, 11:05:26 AM »

Quote from: Bob Hunt on February 12, 2019, 07:26:35 AM

...... One of them is most certainly not a Nobler clone...

Later - Bob Hunt

How does it fly? Any video of it?

Ken Culbertson · « **Reply #29 on:** February 12, 2019, 12:29:07 PM »

Quote from: Bob Hunt on February 12, 2019, 07:26:35 AM

Hi again, David:

Here are a few more originals. One of them is most certainly not a Nobler clone...

Later - Bob Hunt

I want one of those. Those pointed fuselage extensions might be all we need to get that damn bird.

I assume it has a bellcrank so see, just a modified Nobler after all.

Ken

FLOYD CARTER · « **Reply #30 on:** February 12, 2019, 01:03:26 PM »

Quote from: Brett Buck on February 11, 2019, 09:24:10 AM

It wasn't a bad question - how are you going to know if you don't ask? But designing/building/flying is what we do, that's the nature of the event. Essentially, we are still doing exactly like they did it since about 1950, with improved technology.

Brett

In addition to improved technology, the competition skill levels today are light years ahead of 1950.

IdRatherBeBuilding · « **Reply #31 on:** February 12, 2019, 02:16:34 PM »

Wow, many respects to you Bob Hunt. I remember reading about you in MAN in high school. Yes the magazine was hidden in my test book at the time.

That canard is sweet! Definitely gotta build one of those!

David Miller

IdRatherBeBuilding · « **Reply #32 on:** February 12, 2019, 02:27:45 PM »

Before I moved, I visited with some local CL fliers at their park.
One of the guys told me, "Pick a wing design, and stick with it". He said the designers usually find an airfoil and layout that they enjoy and stick with. He said the planes differ some what between them, and the biggest factor in a winning combination is the practice the pilot puts into his routine.

David Miller

RC Storick · « **Reply #33 on:** February 12, 2019, 02:32:31 PM »

Explanation of Evolution of design at the end.

ericrule · « **Reply #34 on:** February 12, 2019, 04:28:15 PM »

Something new I have been working on. We have built both a C/L and R/C version of the model and test flown both. RSM Distribution may kit this one later this year.
Eric Rule

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #35 on:** February 12, 2019, 06:33:18 PM »

Here. Don't ever say I haven't contributed to innovation in stunt. You'll want to make sure the canard boom is stiff. Carbon fiber will be your friend.

Mike Griffin · « **Reply #36 on:** February 13, 2019, 10:09:58 AM »

Quote from: ericrule on February 12, 2019, 04:28:15 PM

Something new I have been working on. We have built both a C/L and R/C version of the model and test flown both. RSM Distribution may kit this one later this year.
Eric Rule

I like the looks of that...

Mike

proparc · « **Reply #37 on:** February 13, 2019, 11:18:51 AM »

Except for the "stuff" Proparc's got in the can that no one has seen yet-he he

pat king · « **Reply #38 on:** February 13, 2019, 12:09:22 PM »

I offer 190 different C/L Kits. Most are not precision aerobatic airplanes. I do offer profile kits of the Bill Werwage P-40 and a 40 size profile Werwage P-40. I also offer a full size and a 40 size profile version of the Chris Rud Typhoon. My Ringmaster X-Wing is available in 60 size and 35 size airplane. Those are not your daddy's airplanes.
I have attached a picture of the full size X-Wing.

Pat

dennis lipsett · « **Reply #39 on:** February 13, 2019, 03:05:15 PM »

Quote from: pat king on February 13, 2019, 12:09:22 PM

I offer 190 different C/L Kits. Most are not precision aerobatic airplanes. I do offer profile kits of the Bill Werwage P-40 and a 40 size profile Werwage P-40. I also offer a full size and a 40 size profile version of the Chris Rud Typhoon. My Ringmaster X-Wing is available in 60 size and 35 size airplane. Those are not your daddy's airplanes.
I have attached a picture of the full size X-Wing.

Pat

Yes, And Pat even made an R/C full fuselage version of the X wing Ringmaster. It will be powered with a TomCat 52 with a 14/5 prop and a 5 cell battery. I am keeping the butterfly tail that the model was designed with. But I am also making an interchangeable conventional tail. Simple reason is a V-tail may spin only once. Recovery is never guaranteed

Bob Hunt · « **Reply #40 on:** February 13, 2019, 04:30:49 PM »

Quote from: Doug Moon on February 12, 2019, 11:05:26 AM

How does it fly? Any video of it?

Hi Doug:

Well, to be brutally honest I lost it just seconds after launch. I finished it on a very windy day and could not resist the urge to head out to the backyard and fly it. (Yes, I can fly 35-foot lines safely in my back yard...) The CG was a bit too far aft and we launched it into a headwind. it rolled in at me right away and hit pretty hard. I do think it would have been a good ship and had a successful first flight if I had waited for a calm day. My bad I have a lot of those...

The good news is that I know that canards can be made to fly extremely well. My first canard - The Klingon - flew fantastically and lived for quite a while. It turned very well, and grooved like a freight train. It was so easy to make transitions in round maneuvers with it, too.

Attached is a photo of the Klingon. I will most certainly revisit the canard configuration... soon!

Bob

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #41 on:** February 13, 2019, 05:15:01 PM »

Quote from: Bob Hunt on February 13, 2019, 04:30:49 PM

Attached is a photo of the Klingon. I will most certainly revisit the canard configuration... soon!

Bob

Where's the CG on that critter? From the leadout placement I'm guessing it's at or close to the wingtip LE -- izzat correct?

Ken Culbertson · « **Reply #42 on:** February 13, 2019, 05:30:03 PM »

Quote from: Bob Hunt on February 13, 2019, 04:30:49 PM

The good news is that I know that canards can be made to fly extremely well. My first canard - The Klingon - flew fantastically and lived for quite a while. It turned very well, and grooved like a freight train. It was so easy to make transitions in round maneuvers with it, too.

Is there one of your workups on this design anywhere? I am just crazy enough to want to try it. If you don't have to do rolls I think a Canard would be extremely stable and with he elevator completely out of the prop wash, corners should be a snap. This is really cool, show us more!

Ken

Let me add that as an electric, this would really be a candidate for counter rotating props or for a deducted fan. Has anybody tried a fan? If you are going to try crazy why not try real crazy!

Perry Rose · « **Reply #43 on:** February 14, 2019, 12:07:53 PM »

My latest design, another P-40 type for warbird.

Shorts,David · « **Reply #44 on:** February 14, 2019, 12:45:39 PM »

Quote from: IdRatherBeBuilding on February 10, 2019, 11:43:29 PM

I've been flying on and off since then, but it was all RC models. I just can't get into RC anymore. Every plane at the field is an ARF. And now it seems more like a past time than a hobby.

David Miller

I'm right there with you David. My biggest disappointment is that to be competitive in CL one really needs to conform to the given norms. Not all clones, but not too far from it. Unfortunately I love being unusual. While this worked in R/C it doesn't perform well enough in CL. Nonetheless, there are some real gems out there from the past that 1. Are classic legal, 2. were designed by guys who knew there stuff, 3. Are incredibly unusual and still perform. So, if you want originality, look at the past. Everyone says you won't win the Walker Cup flying most of them, but if you love being the round peg in the square hole, it seems you can be an advanced competitor and creative at the same time. Especially if you goal is having fun. Just wait till next season...of course once again my winter project probably won't fly for a darn. But maybe this time!

Tim Wescott · « **Reply #45 on:** February 14, 2019, 01:26:45 PM »

Quote from: Ken Culbertson on February 13, 2019, 05:30:03 PM

... Has anybody tried a fan? ...

Not to my knowledge. They're inherently less efficient than propellers at the speeds we fly.

It's basic physics: the smaller the area of the column of air that you accelerate with your propulsion device, the more power it takes to generate the same force. You can do the basic computation on paper; it comes from conservation of momentum and energy (and it's the same reason that induced drag goes up with reduced wingspan).

Note that this doesn't mean that someone shouldn't try it -- an A-10 Warthog is a warbird, after all. I would recommend starting with a profile for proof-of-concept, and then going from there.

IdRatherBeBuilding · « **Reply #46 on:** February 14, 2019, 02:40:41 PM »

Yup, ducted fans are for visual appearance to look more like a real jet. EDFs are getting some nice speed numbers since those motor can spin some high rpms. But lack the torque. You're literally just putting on a high pitched, small diameter, multi-blade prop on a motor.
For some real performance you gotta compress the air like a real jet. CL has been doing that with ramjets since the 50s? Is that right? 1950s?

Shorts,David- You pretty much nailed it spot on! I too like to march to a different drum. We should sit and have a beer together. I loved it when someone would show up with something really different. Like an X-wing Ringmaster! That one is just absolutely cool!

David Miller

Jim Kraft · « **Reply #47 on:** February 14, 2019, 04:48:44 PM »

When I first started flying control line again in 93, I built a couple of Sig Banshees. I then designed this plane around a Banshee wing. It flew well with either a Fox Stunt 35 or an OSFP 40. That was before I decided to dedicate my self to old time ignition. I did fly a couple of Magicians for a few years to fill in between old time.

IdRatherBeBuilding · « **Reply #48 on:** February 14, 2019, 08:27:57 PM »

Beautiful looking plane! And a PERFECT photo shot!
Do you have any pictures of your ignition set up in your planes? Just for some eye candy

Dennis Toth · « **Reply #49 on:** February 14, 2019, 09:20:44 PM »

Ken,
EDF - yes, I have built a purpose built proof of concept ship. The ship is 42" span with a E-flite Delta V15 69mm fan unit. This unit turning 38,500 rpm pushes this ship at 54 mph on 60' C to C 0.015" cable lines. Since there wasn't any data to look at to start I did a test on my El Diablo OTS ship with a Fox 35. This ship comes in at 36 oz with half tank of fuel. I was doing a tank test and with the engine in full 2 cycle and the nose straight up just about had the ship is hover. Base on this I figured that for a ship of about 42" span I would need to have about 34 - 36 oz of thrust. The Delta V15 has a max static thrust of 44 oz. This seemed to have enough headroom to get the ship off the ground.

With the success of Dan Banjak's dyna jet stunter, it seemed this could work. The ship is about 42 oz (quick heavy but this is all battery). Never the less out we went to the field and the next question - how much runway would it need and could I get enough airspeed to takeoff from the soccer field or do we need to get to a paved area. Well I set the flight timer for 10 sec (figuring if it didn't get off in 10 sec it wouldn't work). I had my flying helper hold the ship until the fan came up to full rpm. He let it go and 15 ft later it was up and very flyable. After a couple more test hops I increased flight time to 30 sec and started to try some soft maneuvers, climb, dive, inside loop. All big but it didn't lose speed. Increase to 2 mins then to 4 mins and did all the OTS maneuvers (over a few flights) except the vertical eight. I just ran out of time to complete the vertical 8, I think it will do it just that contest season and work started to get going and I put the ship on the rack for now. This technology works well but you need the very high rpm for it to really work. Others have tried DF with lower rpm piston power at around 28 - 29,000 rpm and it just didn't have the thrust.

As we get lighter batteries this will open up this technology for some great new stunt designs.

Best, DennisT