stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Bradley Walker on September 22, 2009, 03:32:30 PM
-
Brodak has the new T-Rex in stock. He said they look great. y1
-
thats is great! I wish there were pictures showing the different color trims so I could pick the one I like most.
Good job Bradley!
Martin
-
Called Brodak today to confirm my back orders, the only color they received in this first batch is Orange.
-
I meant to remind everyone, the new T-Rex is covered in real Ultracote. This is the first Brodak plane to receive this premium covering.
-
Mine came today, VERY NICE!!!! I will weigh all parts and report back. I will be using this plane to test, Stalker 61 LT LS, Stalker 66 RE, Discovery Retro .60 RE. and Stalker 76 SE. Many upgrades on this one... Ultrakote is very nice. I will post weights in ARF section.
-
You have got to check out this thread if you are a T-Rex fan.
http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=14349.0 (http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?topic=14349.0)
-
Gearing up to put one together (actually two 1-ARF & 1-ARC) with a Saito 62 on it's side. Will try to remember to take photos as I go.
-
Gearing up to put one together (actually two 1-ARF & 1-ARC) with a Saito 62 on it's side. Will try to remember to take photos as I go.
Bitchin...
-
I bought one....I plan to modify the wing saddle....they all seem to loosen and need triplers...I think the SV/Legacy are going to have them...
-
I am posting a T-Rex build thread in the electric forum.
bob branch
-
Quick question
Most of the ARC and ARF’s in production seem to have a pedigree of contest success.
The Vector has been a regular competition winner, the Strega has been top 5 at the Nats at least twice. The soon to come Impact is a Nats winner etc, etc.
I have never before heard of the T Rex. Has it or its designer ever won a major contest?
-
Quick question
Most of the ARC and ARF’s in production seem to have a pedigree of contest success.
The Vector has been a regular competition winner, the Strega has been top 5 at the Nats at least twice. The soon to come Impact is a Nats winner etc, etc.
I have never before heard of the T Rex. Has it or its designer ever won a major contest?
The T-Rex is a new design, but borrows from Bob Palmers T-bird, the Nobler, Impact,Patternmaster. I'm not sure how you could design a U/C stunt job without borrowing or duplicating something-if it flies a good pattern, people will say its just a modified Nobler, etc. The mission (fly the pattern) dictates that the plane will look a certain way and have certain attributes, and stunt jobs will look *identical* until somebody gets a canard job to fly a decent pattern.
T-Rex was optimized to make it the most competitive it could be as an ARF, ie, anticipating indifferent communist wood selection , every effort was made to reduce structure, and take advantage of laser cutting to make a structure using as little wood as possible, compared to just copying an existing design, one which in many cases is highly dependent on using contest wood to make weight.
-
So to re cap, this design is new and unproven,
It is a hybrid of several other designs but its designer and the design itself has never won a single contest?
-
Gee Eliott, you must be a bundle of joy at the family thanksgiving dinner! n~
Please tell us about all of your successful designs that are now in production. Z@@ZZZ
Just to recap: Brad is a very good competition pilot. Brad is a very good designer. Brad knows more than most about making a good competition plane. Brad's design is based on tried and true #s that have won many contests. (as others have already told you). Mr. Brodak would not have put Brad's plane into production if it was not a very good flying CLPA plane that will be competitive. There have been nothing but positive comments on this forum from competition pilots flying or watching Brad's prototypes fly the pattern. Brad's plane will do very well at contests.
IMHO: It is rude, out of line, and unnecessary comments like yours that detract from this excellent forum. If your point was to be rude, then you made it. If you have another point, then you may want to state it in a more positive, and polite manner.
If you want to bash someone, you may want to go to another forum or at least start your own negative thread and not try to hijack this one. .... I hope our moderator stops you from any further bashing, this is not the place for it and it sure does not help the world of CLPA in any way.
So to re cap, this design is new and unproven,
It is a hybrid of several other designs but its designer and the design itself has never won a single contest?
-
Regarding the "indifferent communist wood" of a previous post (I loved it, btw!) that we normally find in an arf... be prepared for a suprise. The wood on the wing sheeting of mine is 4 to 5 pound stock. You finger goes thru it just as easily as the stuff I custom order for a scratch build. Don't ask me how I know HB~>.
bob branch
-
Gee...I'm in a fix now!When my T Rex gets here today and i have to explain to my wife the reason for another airplane I'm in real trouble!If the vectors were because of their proven contest record,magnum,strega,sv22,and the other 12 or so,the only thing I can come up with is It's light for health reasons!The pipe ship was quiet(good for my ears). The 4 strokes (fun factor).The rest (PTSD).Now to find out from BOB the wood is light,how do I explain the pile of balsa I bought and investing in an unproven design!What a tough hobby this is, but it sure is fun....Jim
-
So to re cap, this design is new and unproven,
It is a hybrid of several other designs but its designer and the design itself has never won a single contest?
That is mostly correct, even though I am not really sure what it has to do with the price of tea in China. Pedigrees are for dogs and horses... unless you are a snob.
Did you know the guy who invented the first Bell helicopter never flew a helicopter before? They built it in a barn. Now we build V-22's.
I think the T-Rex will stand on its own. Should be coming soon to contest near you.
-
IMHO: It is rude, out of line, and unnecessary comments like yours that detract from this excellent forum. If your point was to be rude, then you made it. If you have another point, then you may want to state it in a more positive, and polite manner.
If you want to bash someone, you may want to go to another forum or at least start your own negative thread and not try to hijack this one. .... I hope our moderator stops you from any further bashing, this is not the place for it and it sure does not help the world of CLPA in any way.
Ah, it does not bother me. Let the guy talk all he wants. 20 years as an engineer I have grown used to the critics.
Let me ask you all a question:
Who would you rather have design you a plane? A guy that can make any piece of crap fly good, or a guy who needs all the help he can get? ;D Put another way, I TRIED A LOT OF THE "PROVEN" designs, and I found many of them wanting. I wanted something that would darn near fly itself. As I do not have 200 flights a year to practice.
Also, many of the "proven" designs to do not translate well to ARC or ARF form. Many of the "proven" designs were designed around "magic helium wood" and come out way too heavy in Chinese wood. This is especially true for larger planes. BTW, I explained all of this in my T-Rex article in CLW.
Also, I wanted a design that would be useful to everyone. So, I dropped the 50 year old double beam Nobler nose and changed to an RC mount with a spinnerless nose. This is best for those who want to try various new and different setups. Most of the "proven" designs were purpose built for one drivetrain (2 stroke, 4 stroke, pipe, etc). The T-Rex will do anything you want. It even appears to be nearly ideal of electric.
-
Hi Rudy
Not trying to offend anyone (especially you Rudy) and I am sure Bradley has plenty of balls for any argument if one is thrown his way, he seems to say that in his post and I believe him. I hadn’t seen the design around prior to its arrival in ARF, it hasn’t won any contests which is all I wanted to know.
Pedigree might seem like the wrong word here, background, past, history, experience etc might have been better chosen non snobby words. But Bradley’s clever point is duly noted, let’s see how it performs in the hands of others.
Eliott
-
Eliott; I am surprised you haven't gotten slapped a little harder. I have met and known Brad for a few years and know he will probably brush your comments off to the side. He has taken flak in the past, even from me. He has designed a plane that looks great and performs. Once the planes are assembled and flown will we really get to see how it goes. You failed to notice the first modern era plane to be produced was the famous Nobler. Have you checked to see how it has done, the ARF version not the new kit version. I have had and still have the ARF. Now if the T-Rex was in a smaller size I would have ordered one. Anyway lets all have fun and not bash anyone without proof. DOC Holliday
-
Brad, mine arrived yesterday, and uponclose inspection the wood is excellent. OBTW it didn't come in orange but rather in yellow/checkerboard. I love RTC. I plan on a PA .75/pipe, but back to the plane, there are so many options, all should be happy with the plane. I think you will see a lot of these at contests next year. Brad, you done good!!!!!!!!!!! #^ #^ #^ Ron.
-
The real challenge is bringing outa good PRODUCT at a marketable price. Brad has posted the earlier iterations of T-Rex here, and it is plain that he has worked hard to maximize the quality and minimize the weight - all at a darned good price. The early returns are in folks, sounds like a soild home-run so far!
While I am not anticipating buying a T-Rex, (I am building my own stuff) I APPLAUD Brad's & John Brodak's commitment & efforts to supply FIRST CLASS products for the CLPA community. That is good for all of us
As for competitive records, I expect T-Rex's will do just fine starting yet this fall/winter...
If anyone has a personal beef with Brad they should address it to him directly and privately, and not soil this forum...
-
Brother Elliott, you gots to chill on that!! Big Jim Greenaway was not a big contest winner or even participator!! But, I personally consider him to be one of the top three greatest and influential designers, (and engine men) this sport has ever produced.
If Randy Smith never won, or even entered one single contest, and still made the same kick-ass motors he known for, you better believe we would still be buying them in droves just like we do now. If the product is good-it's good, and that is all there is to it.
-
Brother Elliott, you gots to chill on that!! Big Jim Greenaway was not a big contest winner or even participator!! But, I personally consider him to be one of the top three greatest and influential designers, (and engine men) this sport has ever produced.
If Randy Smith never won, or even entered one single contest, and still made the same kick-ass motors he known for, you better believe we would still be buying them in droves just like we do now. If the product is good-it's good, and that is all there is to it.
As a big fan of both Big Jim and Randy, I wholeheartedly agree.
Big Jim was especially under appreciated. I do not think he ever got the real credit he is due simply to the fact that was NOT a winning pilot. There is lot of evidence to show that he either invented or helped invent what we refer to as a "modern stunt ship".
Randy Smith is by FAR the most influential US stunt person in modern history. No one else is even CLOSE to Randy. He has more successful designs, engines and products than anyone in 30 years... and he did all that in a NICHE market like stunt.
In my case...everyone has to start somewhere. How many "new" designs are being produced in CL stunt? Heck, an Impact is considered "modern" and it is 20 years old... WHO IS DOING ALL THIS DESIGNING OUT THERE???? Aside from Randy, Pat Johnston, Windy, Phil Granderson, John Miller, and few others I do not see a lot of original designs that are new. Mostly, people are flying the same designs they have been flying for years.
-
Hi Brad,
I have a small favor to ask. For those of us who are using clean, quiet, reliable, electric power in your very nice T-Rex, it would be helpful to know two dimensions and some weights.
1. What is the distance from the CG (center of range) to the center of mass of the engine in your prototype? ....... (the glow plug is close enough if you are using an engine with a muffler, just give me a WAG if using a tuned pipe ;-)
2. What is the weight of your engine/muffler system? (type is fine, I can look it up ;-)
3. What is the distance from the CG to the center of your fuel tank.
4. Do you use a metal or plastic tank? (difference in weight)
5. How many oz of fuel?
If I have these two distances, and weights, I can plug them into my W&B spread sheet and it will tell me exactly where to mount the electric motor and the battery to match your "wet system" CG.
Thanks in advance for your help. :-)
Regards, H^^
-
Rudy:
Bob Branch started a build thread on his T-Rex with AXI power over in the Electric forum too.
-
"How many "new" designs are being produced in CL stunt? Heck, an Impact is considered "modern" and it is 20 years old... WHO IS DOING ALL THIS DESIGNING OUT THERE???? Aside from Randy, Pat Johnston, Windy, Phil Granderson, John Miller, and few others I do not see a lot of original designs that are new. Mostly, people are flying the same designs they have been flying for years."
But when will it win a contest?
-
That's really, really funny Howard LL~ LL~ LL~
All that and a picture of the number 1 new design in the world with it's designer and pilot............
Jim Pollock ;D I can't stop grinning, tee, hee..
Jim Pollock Oh yeah this is 700 too..
-
"How many "new" designs are being produced in CL stunt? Heck, an Impact is considered "modern" and it is 20 years old... WHO IS DOING ALL THIS DESIGNING OUT THERE???? Aside from Randy, Pat Johnston, Windy, Phil Granderson, John Miller, and few others I do not see a lot of original designs that are new. Mostly, people are flying the same designs they have been flying for years."
But when will it win a contest?
I admit, I forgot to mention David, who just recently designed his FIRST airplane to fly competitively (after competing for 30 years flying other people's designs).
Of course, David was winning before the new design so little could be directly attributed to the new design.
This idea that the the best designs would come from winners is retarded. It is like saying that only Tiger Woods should be designing golf clubs.
The guy who invented the Big Bertha driver (which basically revolutionized golf) was a pool cue designer. I am not even sure he played golf.
The Wright brothers were bicycle mechanics.
PS: I am sure David didn't mind my "non champion" help developing the drivetrain for his new model. I seem to remember Paul did not mind either.
-
"How many "new" designs are being produced in CL stunt? Heck, an Impact is considered "modern" and it is 20 years old... WHO IS DOING ALL THIS DESIGNING OUT THERE???? Aside from Randy, Pat Johnston, Windy, Phil Granderson, John Miller, and few others I do not see a lot of original designs that are new. Mostly, people are flying the same designs they have been flying for years."
But when will it win a contest?
Howard, I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong, but, isn't Thunder Gazer derived from the Star Gazer, which is derived or at least related to a Trivial Pursuit, which would trace its lineage back to an Imitation, etc? Clearly Fitzgerald had optimized the design family to suit his needs, yet Thunder Gazer is no more a *completely new* design than the currently being lampooned T-Rex is a completely new design. Brad's hyperbole regarding design applies equally to everybody-stunt design is essentially stagnant and always will be, with the exception of modifying the existing template of numbers to suit new powertrains such as the PA 75 or RoJett 90, or electric.
My tinfoil hat tells me that there is a conspiracy to prevent the new T-Rex from winning anything, since mine arrived squashed thanks to the UPS conspirators. Mine won't win anything except the "arrived in the most pieces" award.
-
Congratulations Steve! That means your T-Rex is the first to win something! n~
bob branch
-
Hi Brad,
I have a small favor to ask. For those of us who are using clean, quiet, reliable, electric power in your very nice T-Rex, it would be helpful to know two dimensions and some weights.
1. What is the distance from the CG (center of range) to the center of mass of the engine in your prototype? ....... (the glow plug is close enough if you are using an engine with a muffler, just give me a WAG if using a tuned pipe ;-)
2. What is the weight of your engine/muffler system? (type is fine, I can look it up ;-)
3. What is the distance from the CG to the center of your fuel tank.
4. Do you use a metal or plastic tank? (difference in weight)
5. How many oz of fuel?
If I have these two distances, and weights, I can plug them into my W&B spread sheet and it will tell me exactly where to mount the electric motor and the battery to match your "wet system" CG.
Thanks in advance for your help. :-)
Regards, H^^
I will try to post a PDF set of plans.
I use the PA 65 on a the header muffler (about 13.5 oz), a Sullivan 6 oz tank all the way back against the firewall, and 4.5 oz of fuel.
-
Frankly, Brad has done a great job with his design. It should prove itself as a great design during this next season. I especially like the simplicity involved with modifications in the power train. TLAR in the extreem, and proven numbers will almost always get you there.
For example, The Legacywas designed based on a previous design, over the phone, between the designer and the draftsman. Many changes were incorporated between the Buccaneer and the new design. New airfoil, and moments, as well as relationships between flaps, stab, and elevators. It went direct to kit, before even one had been built. It's, at the least, proven a decent stunter, as will Brad's T'Rex be. H^^
-
Capt. Fitzgerald would be the guy to tell you about the Thundergazer. From what I've heard, there is quite a bit of difference between it and the yeller plane he had been flying. He had the Landres circle in mind when he made the Thundergazer. It worked.
-
Capt. Fitzgerald would be the guy to tell you about the Thundergazer. From what I've heard, there is quite a bit of difference between it and the yeller plane he had been flying. He had the Landres circle in mind when he made the Thundergazer. It worked.
It appears to be more Granderson influence than anything... I agree with what David is doing. I think it is the way to go.
I have a T-Rex 600 on the way. He HE HE!!!
-
Thanks, Brad. Your agreement will give Dave the self-confidence he needs.
-
I have a T-Rex 600 on the way. He HE HE!!!
I guess we can't have enough of an unproven design. LL~
-
David was winning before the new design so little could be directly attributed to his new design.
This idea that the the best designs would come from winners is retarded.
-
Hi Brad,
This is all the info I need. When my T-Rex arrives I can get the other measurements from the actual plane. If you had to place the tank at the far rear, I am worried that I will have to cut into the LE of the wing to get the 5S battery far enough back for a proper CG. The other alternative is to shorten the nose a little? We will know very soon. ;-)
Thanks for your reply:
"I will try to post a PDF set of plans.
I use the PA 65 on a the header muffler (about 13.5 oz), a Sullivan 6 oz tank all the way back against
the firewall, and 4.5 oz of fuel"
Regards, H^^
-
Eliott, you need to locate and read the piece Brad wrote on the design of the T-Rex and while you are at it read Fitzgerald's piece on the design of his ship. They both had a specific goal and put allot of knowledge and effort into achieving that goal.
-
Eliott, you need to locate and read the piece Brad wrote on the design of the T-Rex and while you are at it read Fitzgerald's piece on the design of his ship. They both had a specific goal and put allot of knowledge and effort into achieving that goal.
I haven't read Davids piece, do you know where I can get a copy.
"The idea that the best designs come from winners is retarded"
Bradley Walker
-
I haven't read Davids piece, do you know where I can get a copy.
"The idea that the best designs come from winners is retarded"
Bradley Walker
Let it go Eliot
-
David's Thundergazer is an outstanding stunt ship. I should know I watched it beat me this year in the Top5 at the nats. Correct me if I am wrong but i am pretty sure I read where he took the geo bolt airfoil, thinner than the others he was using yet still blunted along the LE, and worked it up to be 630 or so square inches. Then matched up an airfoiled stab and elevator and pretty much inside the envelope numbers for tail moment and nose moment. The wing (in my opinion), along with the loafing large motor and very good trimming skills, was key to getting that rig to fly very solid in the winds in France and it paid off. He also incorporated the take apart design from the Impact article that PW developed. Now where else have I seen that wing really perform wonders........hmmmmmm, OH YEAH IN MY PLANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAAHHA!! I just a tad more span and larger flaps, couple that with a larger stab to match % wise and POW POW you have another monster on your hands. David's plane was very specific in its design and its task, winning, and completed it very well.
How many of you, who buy arfs, would have bought one without it ever being flown in a contest?
Brad's design was different in many ways. You see, having been exposed to many planes built from China and the process it takes to complete a final design I can tell you now large planes have the tendency to get heavy fast. Just check out a Score and you will see what I mean. I remember looking over the first Saturn to come over and it was nice and well built but it stood no chance of being a competitive weight. While the little G Nobler was coming in at a perfect weight. hmmmmmm. Well, bigger planes just weigh more and it goes up exponentially. The Impact will be light. They have to be careful in wood selection and several changes to their construction methods were made along the way insure this. Brad has taken it to the next level. He looked around many different areas of modeling and specifically in stunt and came up with his OWN design that is not only different in appearance but VASTLY different in construction methods as well. It is not a single drive train specific design either. It has every engine choice in mind. Thus leaving it open to owner as to what road he wants to take. Not only that once you go one route you are not committed to that route forever. You can make power train changes along the way. It makes no difference. But I dont think this is the real design key that makes it different. It is my personal opinion that coming up with a design method that fits the current building supplies available to the manufacturer while still yielding a solid light weight competent stunt plane is the REAL design element here that is NEW. This was, I believe, one of the major tasks this model was designed to complete. And I feel it has done just that. This has been done in other facets of modeling and now it has been brought to CLPA. This can only help bring more and more competitive designs to the market while keeping the affordable. Unlike the Sharks and Akrobats the more these are refined and designed and more designs offered the more affordable they become. Check one out for yourself before you pass judgment.
I have seen one fly several times. I think it flew great, light on the lines, no funny wiggles or what looked to be trim issues anywhere. I think I could kick some ass with one.
-
I am with Elliot on this one . He asked a very appropriate question and everybody had a jump in on him . I never heard of this plane either . Although very cool looking one would have to ask , it would seam to me as well how did it do at competitions ? Is that so wrong ? It looks like a winner to me but if I had to chose I would pick the Thunder Gazer hands down over the T Rex until proved different . Is choosing a winning design is one thing to consider when picking a plane to build ? Absolutely !
Am I totally thrilled that we have the T Rex to choose for that big engine I have sitting in the garage ? Heck Yeah ! What dose the T Rex tip the scales at ? Like Doug said big planes get fat quick ! Like to know what the weight is ready to fly . Did anybody put theirs on a scale yet ?
-
Hi Rudy:
You actually have a W&B program that will tell you where to place the battery and other components to get the same CG as the wet version? I am struggling with that issue doing a China Clipper (Claus Maikis design) from the ground up as an electric. I would be very interested in learning about this, so I can build a battery mounting system that puts the battery in the correct location to achieve the design CG. We don't really have much choice about where to mount the motor, unless we decide to shorten the nose, which is certainly legitimate to achieve balance without adding ballast.
That said, we need to remember that the design CG is a compromise to take into account the rear-shifting CG as 6 oz of fuel burns off during the flight. Electric CG stays put. Let me know if your program can be shared.
I presume you have checked out the E-Rex thread in the Amp'd Up section?
-
I am with Elliot on this one . He asked a very appropriate question and everybody had a jump in on him . I never heard of this plane either . Although very cool looking one would have to ask , it would seam to me as well how did it do at competitions ? Is that so wrong ? It looks like a winner to me but if I had to chose I would pick the Thunder Gazer hands down over the T Rex until proved different . Is choosing a winning design is one thing to consider when picking a plane to build ? Absolutely !
Well, when the ARF Thunder Gazer arrives on the shipping container from China, you can try it out hands down!
Elliot got jumped on not because he asked questions, but because his tone was pre-loaded to "lets trash something we have not seen and know nothing about" from the get go. Taking a quote from Brad out of context in Elliot's last post pretty much proves the point that he was out to trash Brad and the airplane Brad designed, not educate himself about it.
-
First of all my hats off to brad for an exceptional airplane!It's the lightest most thought out design arf iv'e seen .This is not from an assumption,a picture, but from the actual airplane setting here by me.Mine was the other one not smashed with Steves order.It sat in the box until 6 o"clock tonight.It's 12 now and if I had the extra hinges for the stab (short a few) it would be ready to go.Put it togeather setting in my den in my lazyboy watching tv .The biggest problem Iv'e had is which engine to put in it saito 62,pa 65, or tiger 51.Four bolts and it can be anyone of them.....I don't like orange airplanes in paticular but my wife thinks it pretty!She thinks my candy fade out strega is ugly. go figure.....Anyway this thing will get flown very shortly and I'll find out if this is a good weapon for my intermediate flying.More to come shortly....Jim
-
Geez
Whats wrong with the T-Rex it's a new plane. Are we supposed to fly ringmasters forever.? ???
I like change. And i think Brad did a great job. Lets all get along....
We should support are designers. Bryan
-
Yeah i guess some feelings got stepped on there . Didn't someone say the Impact is in the works ? Ya never know about the thunder geezer . Point was that if choosing a model what would be your criteria. Contest results . I would not be surprised if Elliot has friends in high places and is a very nice guy. I would like to know more my self about the T Rex You guys. Thanks
-
Hi Mike,
I just wrote you a post with a very long ans. but when I tried to send it with my SS attached the forum system vaporized my whole post. I learned, next time I will send it in a separate post. ;-)
This is not any criticism of the forum, I know there are limits to what can be sent, and in which format. I guess It just did not like my Excel SS! ;-)
I will send it to you via email.
Yes, I have been following the excellent T-Rex thread on the E forum.
I am a very slow builder (even on ARCs) but I will try to have it ready for the GS-Champs in two weeks. My Plentenberg motor and FAI ESC is waiting for their new ride! :-)
Regards,
Hi Rudy:
You actually have a W&B program that will tell you where to place the battery and other components to get the same CG as the wet version? I am struggling with that issue doing a China Clipper (Claus Maikis design) from the ground up as an electric. I would be very interested in learning about this, so I can build a battery mounting system that puts the battery in the correct location to achieve the design CG. We don't really have much choice about where to mount the motor, unless we decide to shorten the nose, which is certainly legitimate to achieve balance without adding ballast.
That said, we need to remember that the design CG is a compromise to take into account the rear-shifting CG as 6 oz of fuel burns off during the flight. Electric CG stays put. Let me know if your program can be shared.
I presume you have checked out the E-Rex thread in the Amp'd Up section?
-
>The Wright brothers were bicycle mechanics.
True, but they were much more, and having decided to tackle the problem of flight, they made themselves into scientists and engineers second to none in their own time.
Before commenting further on this, I'll say that in my opinion, Brad's T-Rex is probably a very good - perhaps top echelon - stunt ship. He has the experience, awareness of previous technology in the field, and the wit to use it in producing top level performers. He has shown cleverness in other designs. No doubt, his designs fit well within the parameters of what has worked for others and what has worked for himself. Certainly, one need not have won titles to produce superior stunt ships. It has been done too many times before, and all one has to do is look for the examples.
Edit: Just re-reading my post, it seems as though I may have slighted Brad's originality. Just to clarify my own opinion - "from afar": Brad's designs have shown original thinking too, and he has flown successfully with his earlier designs. While he and I don't always agree, he certainly has posted enough personal design opinions on this and other forums to claim originality. I'd certainly expect his plane to fly quite well - as claimed. I think he's "paid his dues".
Still, I do have a problem with this recurrent theme about the Wrights. Yup, in addition to scholars, writers, printers, publishers, and other things, they were indeed bicycle mechanics. But Insisting that the Wrights were just good mechanics, “proving,” as one host maintains, that engineering was neither needed nor employed in achieving sustained, controlled flight does not just miss the mark, but is simply and utterly untrue. Anyone who has read the excellent biographies available and especially the Wright’s notebooks knows that they were self-made engineers and scientists of the first rank, who used mathematics to analyze, predict, and proportion their “flyer.” They literally invented the first aircraft propellers, configuring and sizing them and an engine of their own design to produce precisely the thrust they computed to be necessary for a machine with drag and wing loadings computed from their own experimentally determined “pressure tables” and airfoil data. Designed with clever use of their high-school trigonometry, their propellers boasted modern efficiencies. Their celebrated invention of 3-axis control was a major and key factor, but only one of many things that they methodically developed in as great an example of scientific method and discipline as has ever been demonstrated. Anyway, the Wrights’ notebooks (as pictured below) are among the worthwhile things posted in their entirety on the internet and easily accessible via Google. The best source is the Library of Congress site, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/wrighthtml/wrightSeries1.html, where you’ll find their entire papers and photos. Look them up and be pleasantly impressed with some of the best works in aviation.
So let's cease mis-characterizing the Wrights, without at least understanding what they actually did. It's publically accesible.
It probably wouldn't hurt - IMHO - to stop talking negatively about each other too.
SK
-
So let's cease mis-characterizing the Wrights, without at least understanding what they actually did. It's publically accesible.
SK
[/quote]
Well put, Serge.
-
Charles Taylor is an unsung hero whose achievements and importance have been all but overlooked. Although just about every child knows about Orville and Wilbur Wright, most have never heard of Charles Edward Taylor.
The first Aircraft mechanic .Charlie Taylor was a silent but essential participant in the Wright Brothers' success story at Kitty Hawk. In six weeks he built the 12-horsepower engine that powered the first successful flying machine, the Wright Flyer.
Taylor, who was a skilled machinist, was hired by the Wrights to run the bicycle shop at the Wright Cycle Company in Dayton, Ohio. After failing to find an adequate manufacturer for the engine for their "Flyer" the Wrights called on Taylor to assist in designing and building the first aircraft engine.
On the morning of December 17, 1903, at the base of Kill Devil Hills, south of the village of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, the Wright Brothers made aviation history by successfully flying the first powered airplane. This achievement would not have been possible if it were not for Charles Edward Taylor, the man responsible for assisting in the design, development, and production for the first aircraft powerplant.
Taylor's pioneering career in aviation mechanics spanned more than sixty years. After the first successful flights in 1903, he continued to work with the Wrights in the engine design effort and later built the aircraft engines. He traveled with Orville to Fort Meyer, Virginia, in 1908 during test flights for the United States government and was with Wilbur at the 1909 Hudson-Fulton flights in New York. Taylor later served as Calbraith Rodgers' chief mechanic during his first transcontinental flight in 1911.
-
Thanks, Brad. Your agreement will give Dave the self-confidence he needs.
Howard, you seem to have all the confidence you need these days to make backhanded slaps. I appreciate that.
-
I think the point about the Wrights is that you don't have to be a High Energy Physicist to be smart.
However the corollary is that it is possible to be dumb and be in any job!
-
Remind me to never mention the Wright brothers again... I should have stuck with the Big Bertha guy.
Here are the drawings for my fully suspended bellcrank mount for the two piece wing ARF. These pictures had to be created and sent to the factory to clarify the design, so I made 3D solild models of the entire system and outlined them in Powerpoint.
Mounting bellcranks has been an ongoing problems in the CL ARF market, and I believe I solved it here with my original design. Of all the things within the T-Rex design this is the thing of which I am the most proud. It took a LOT of work to get this mounting system made right... a lot of work.... but at least now I can say that the USER gets to install the bellcrank with his own glue and the bellcrank is attached to the fuselage sides as God intended.
-
Here is the PDF with dimensions. It is not full scale as the file would be too large.
Keep in mind the T-Rex was expressly designed to be an ARF/ARC. It is not simply someone's old contest ship that we sent a set of plans over to have made .
It was designed from the ground up for modern mass production, like most of the modern RC ARF/ARCs. If any one of you guys would attend the large model trade shows, you would see what I mean. There is whole world of modeling going on out there beyond lawn darts and dope.
A little bird just told me that one of my good friends has just completed his T-Rex ARF. It is 62.5 oz ready to fly with a PA 61 and pipe.
-
<snip>
A little bird just told me that one of my good friends has just completed his T-Rex ARF. It is 62.5 oz ready to fly with a PA 61 and pipe.
Yep and I'll probably be the one that launches for him. If I'm a good boy he may even let me fly it ;D
-
"lets trash something we have not seen and know nothing about" from the get go.
Show me the post where I have trashed Brads design?
I asked a simple question
“I have never before heard of the T Rex. Has it or its designer ever won a major contest?”
I just asked a simple question and asking if a plane has history when you don’t know anything about it seems like common sense to me.
The T Rex is unproven and untested by anyone apart from Brad and Steve Moon as far as I can tell (no one in the post says otherwise), I had no point, just a question and the question was answered.
I am not nor ever have claimed to be, a designer of stunt planes. I have penned a few plans for others during my semi retirement. I am at beginner level and slowly learning the pattern, I am not in the business of field testing or learning with planes that have not been proven, rung out and made ready for someone of my level.
Brad has made a few points that seem questionable to me, but here I believe we are allowed to disagree.
Golfers do not design or use their own equipment in the main, but in stunt we do, if you look at the world class ships (i.e. world champions) the majority of the flyers have also been the designers.
-
Remind me to never mention the Wright brothers again... I should have stuck with the Big Bertha guy.
Here are the drawings for my fully suspended bellcrank mount for the two piece wing ARF. These pictures had to be created and sent to the factory to clarify the design, so I made 3D solild models of the entire system and outlined them in Powerpoint.
Mounting bellcranks has been an ongoing problems in the CL ARF market, and I believe I solved it here with my original design. Of all the things within the T-Rex design this is the thing of which I am the most proud. It took a LOT of work to get this mounting system made right... a lot of work.... but at least now I can say that the USER gets to install the bellcrank with his own glue and the bellcrank is attached to the fuselage sides as God intended.
Very clever engineering, Brad. At first I was wondering about the split ply plates (L & R) but then saw the pictures with the overlapping doubler. Good thinking. I'm assuming that after joining the two halves the owner is advised to glass cloth the joint, correct?
One thing that struck me was the location of the bellcrank well aft of the high point of the wing and aft of the spars. Is this the actual location? What was your thinking re mounting it that far back.
Thanks,
Ted
-
Glass cloth is included in both the ARF and ARC for the wing joint. Not in the shop and can't look to see where the bellcrank is so will let Brad answer that one.
-
Glass cloth is included in both the ARF and ARC for the wing joint. Not in the shop and can't look to see where the bellcrank is so will let Brad answer that one.
I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to include packets of Part A and B slow set epoxies given the possibility of an ARF/ARC being purchased by someone without a "shop" and its usual supplies? While a properly glass clothed butt joint is probably adequate, a poor joint or one made with inappropriate materials could be a recipe for a short existence.
Just a thought.
Ted
-
Brad,
Nice work. The model's styling looks nice and seems well designed, as usual. I hope they sell out because it looks like the best designed ARF/ARC available. Doug made all of the germane points in his post, and well.
I know that it's a small point, but the bellcrank suspension (we used all-thread) and the ply overlaps on the wing joint (used 1/64th) are just about exactly the same as when Whitely showed me how to do my first foam wing in '82. I don't know how original it is, but it's a good system and should work just fine.
Ted mentions the high point of the airfoil for Stunt's normally preferred bellcrank location. Ted, is that just for strength? I shouldn't think it'd matter location wise for geometry, but I don't know too much.
Chris...
-
Remind me to never mention the Wright brothers again... I should have stuck with the Big Bertha guy.
Here are the drawings for my fully suspended bellcrank mount for the two piece wing ARF. These pictures had to be created and sent to the factory to clarify the design, so I made 3D solild models of the entire system and outlined them in Powerpoint.
Mounting bellcranks has been an ongoing problems in the CL ARF market, and I believe I solved it here with my original design. Of all the things within the T-Rex design this is the thing of which I am the most proud. It took a LOT of work to get this mounting system made right... a lot of work.... but at least now I can say that the USER gets to install the bellcrank with his own glue and the bellcrank is attached to the fuselage sides as God intended.
Very nicely done. I need to send you my balsa.bmp for your wood textures..
-
Larry,
any chance you would share that balsa bmp with another CAD guy maybe?
-
Absolutely. It was shared with me! Just email me at larry@cunningham-designs.com and I'll send it.
L.
"If you wait until the last minute, then it only takes a minute." -Someone in Mr. Deckert's senior design class
-
One thing that struck me was the location of the bellcrank well aft of the high point of the wing and aft of the spars. Is this the actual location? What was your thinking re mounting it that far back.
Thanks,
Ted
Hello Ted,
I have a Geo Bolt wing out in the shop and it is currently resting in a very damaged Furias and I checled the BC location on that one. I Mount it right behind the spar. The spar on that wing goes straight across and does not follow the high point like most designs. This puts the BC mount about 1.5'-2" behind the highpoint. Incidentally it puts the LOs right inline with their exit at the line slider.
BC position doesnt matter at all except for drag on the line slider.
I am curious what you thinking is here on the design?
-
Hello Ted,
BC position doesnt matter at all except for drag on the line slider.
I am curious what you thinking is here on the design?
Hi Doug,
I've altered the quote above to show how you've more or less answered your own question. The only reason, IMHO to put the bellcrank in any specific location is to eliminate to the greatest degree possible any compromise to totally fluid controls. In my "designs" (I'm with the people that say most designs are simply refinements of fundamental numbers that will produce a competent stunt ship--the T-Rex certainly included) I go to some lengths to locate the bellcrank pivot as close to the intended CG as I possibly can and I do this for only one reason, to minimize any compromise to the control system operation. After all, we wouldn't purposely design a bulkhead that causes friction on the pushrod--I think it is essential that we not design in friction in the leadouts either.
One of the problems of the often repeated discussions regarding CG location and where you locate the bellcrank fore and aft is that people often use the phrase "because the CG is always going to line up with the leadout guide it doesn't make any difference where you locate the bellcrank." With respect to how "physics" will cause the airplane to hang on the end of the lines (in the yaw axis) that statement is true. What isn't true about that sentence is that where you locate the bellcrank will make a practical and real difference in the function of the control system. Any time you force any part of the control system to rub against or bend around a fixed object you compromise that totally uniform and free control system you worked so hard to build into the ship. If you mount the Bellcrank anywhere except at the location of the CG the leadouts "have to" bend around and rub against the leadout guides and the further fore and aft it is mounted the more they will have to do so. This is bad not only in terms of compromising the control fluidity but also in engineering terms because such friction can and will, over time, compromise the integrity of one or the other of the rubbing surfaces--the leadout or the guide. FWIW, if I chose to use an aft mounted bellcrank I'd be tempted to use flexible, smooth synthetic tubing of some sort and inch or more long as an exit guide--not something hard and potentially sharp like brass tubing.
Bottom line, it ain't as bad as your pushrod rubbing against a bulkhead or glue in the hinges--but, if you want to beat the Thunder Gazer it's something you can do without. Designing such a compromise into your equipment is something I would personally avoid.
It's all one of those "details, details, details" I talked at length about 15 or 20 years ago in my design and trim articles.
You'll find the biggest difference between a Walker Cup winning T-Rex and an also ran Thunder Gazer in those details, not in any esoteric or magic design innovation (and that most certainly includes the deeply flawed concept of stunt nirvana lying in the bowels of a good Canard! Ever get to watch a Burt Rutan Varieze pretend to do "aerobatics"? There's a good reason the big buck full scale aerobatic pilots steer clear of the canard idea). The competition is so keen (as you well know) at the upper levels of stunt around the world that the tiny differences on the scoreboard are largely the result of one flier getting more of the details right than what stunt ship he/she chose to apply them to.
Good luck to Brad's T-Rex. While I don't necessarily think the Impact, Thunder Gazer, Stiletto, T-Bird, Trivial Pursuit, Sea Fury, Genisis, etc are necessarily "retarded", there is also nothing magic about them--or the T-Rex. Get the details right and you'll win with any of them. George pretty much got it right almost 60 years ago. All we've done since then is trim the Christmas tree.
Ted Fancher
-
Very clever engineering, Brad. At first I was wondering about the split ply plates (L & R) but then saw the pictures with the overlapping doubler. Good thinking. I'm assuming that after joining the two halves the owner is advised to glass cloth the joint, correct?
One thing that struck me was the location of the bellcrank well aft of the high point of the wing and aft of the spars. Is this the actual location? What was your thinking re mounting it that far back.
Thanks,
Ted
Good eye. Yes, the glass cloth for the wing joint is included in the kit. Typical like any foam wing.
the reason the bellcrank is aft is to keep the leadouts from rubbing on the gear wire or any other obstructions in the wing. It has a straights shot to the leadouts with nothing in the way. That is the only reason it is aft. Now, the leadouts are free to move in any position the user wishes.
The first proto rubbed the gear wire... so I fixed it.
-
I know that it's a small point, but the bellcrank suspension (we used all-thread) and the ply overlaps on the wing joint (used 1/64th) are just about exactly the same as when Whitely showed me how to do my first foam wing in '82. I don't know how original it is, but it's a good system and should work just fine.
Yes, obviously the typical foam wing suspended bellcrank is NOT original.
Coming up with a way to re-create such a thing in an ARF with a two piece wing is altogether another story. Especially if the goals were:
-make sure the the bellcrank was completely installed in the inboard wing and ready to go
-AND the USER does the final gluing of the mount.
I want the USER to glue in his own bellcrank. So, I came up with this stack ply/ply washer system that simulates the old foam wing suspension. No easy task actually.
-
The bellcrank position does affect the control transfer function, in the following way. A shorter
bellcrank to flap control rod has more distortion in its 3D geometry as it operates.
Good reasons for locating the bellcrank somewhere near its traditional location:
1) placement for leadout wires,
2) convenient tie in to top/bottom spars for traditional C and D tube wings,
3) more physical room in the thickest portion of the wing.
Linearity is improved by using a canted bellcrank, typically tilted forward
by approximately 7 degrees, with neutral offset control horns, corrected for all
three drive points.
Physical space accommodates the tilted bellcrank option easily.
L.
"I broke a mirror in my house. I'm supposed to get seven years of bad luck, but my
lawyer thinks he can get me five." - Steven Wright
-
Good luck to Brad's T-Rex. While I don't necessarily think the Impact, Thunder Gazer, Stiletto, T-Bird, Trivial Pursuit, Sea Fury, Genisis, etc are necessarily "retarded"
Are you really implying that is what I said?
-
Are you really implying that is what I said?
"This idea that the the best designs would come from winners is retarded."
Well Brad, let me put it as simply as possible.
I don't think the word "retarded" has any business in a discussion regarding the efforts of others who share a common passion. Or for those who might believe that success in the "marketplace of competition" is a valid consideration when making decisions about proceeding in any effort. I think your decision to use the word "retarded" was purposeful and intended to get exactly the kind of response you got. My comment was as about as benign a response as your bold font (see cut and pasted from your post above) statement deserved.
I hesitate to think what your fellow modelers with learning challenged children or relatives thought of it.
I might note, as well, that you chose to ignore the positive things I said in the body of my message about the T-Rex project and chose instead to make a "deal" about a toss off line that poked fun at your remarkably obtuse choice of words.
Other than the old proverb about reaping what one sows, I haven't much more to say on the subject. You can either accept it as a tongue in cheek attempt at constructive criticism or you can choose to allow it to fester without understanding that your indigestion is self induced.
Good luck with the T-Rex.
Ted
-
Holy Crap!! This is unbelievable. What Brad has done here is incredibly difficult and
time consuming. And, NO, it is not for everyone. If it's not for you, then just don't
buy one. It is not really necessary for anybody to be trashing Brad, the T-Rex, other
designers or producers of stunt products or anybody else for that matter. Jeeeeez!
I've read this entire thread, and some of the comments here really do come across
as backhanded slaps. As someone who has run a small (very small) business in this
tiny market I know how difficult it can be to do what Brad is doing.
While Brad, myself, Randy, Brodak, or anybody else who runs a business or designs
products for this hobby/sport can simply choose to ignore unwarranted and nasty
criticisms it still has an effect. Of course, good constructive criticism is always a
necessity. But, nasty attacks are so energy draining. They can suck the life out of
you and have you wondering just why is it I'm doing this.
I think Brad should be applauded for his efforts. Brad and I attended the Toledo RC
show in 2008 and it was a real eye-opening experience. It was a great way to see
how others attack many of the same design questions we have to deal with. Wing
lift, construction methods, construction materials, weight, powerplant, etc, etc.
It was a great day, and we were just about the last to leave the building. They were
shutting the lights off as we headed for the exits. Brad has taken some of what we
learned there (and other stuff he's learned along the way) and applied it to the T-Rex.
I really don't see the problem with that. For those out there who only care whether
it has won a contest or not; just wait until somebody wins a contest with it then you'll
know. If you don't like the design or construction methods, don't buy one. But, you
don't have to tell the world you don't like it and you're not buying it. The world
probably doesn't care.
Now, comes the question: should I actually post this? Well, since I am not very good
at holding my tongue I will.
Later, Steve
-
Jim Welch came by this morning like a proud papa showing off his new T-Rex. 55 oz. with a ST 51 .
Willis y1
-
Wow! 55 oz, that's awesome! Steve
-
Wow! 55 oz, that's awesome! Steve
Yep! figure the one I'm doing will end up at 57 or 58 with a Saito 62 and Joe's came out at 63 with a piped PA 61. No doubt this is the most capable 60 size ARF/ARC to come down the pike.
-
Brad, you might not have won he NATS with this design.... but I recognized that you raise the Bar quite high for the next generation of ARF's and ARC's.
I also understand the difference between the idea of a concept being "dumb" and the people alluded to being dumb. D>K
-
Question for anyone that knows.
The ARF, does it come the blue graphics already applied, or just the solid orange film and you have to apply the graphic.
-
Allan I asked Jim Welch the same question. The graphics are applied.
Willis
-
Jim Welch came by this morning like a proud papa showing off his new T-Rex. 55 oz. with a ST 51 .
Willis y1
Howcome Welch wussed out and didn't put the Saito 62 in it?
PS ask him which motor mount he used....
-
I have been away from the hobby for about 5 years now but I would like to ease back into things using one of the engines I have on hand. As light as this plane seems to be in ARF form do you guys think that a ST 51 would work out ok? If so I might give one a try.
Thanks
Rick Henry
-
Sweet weights and good initial flight reports are rolling in already... hate to count those chickens yet, but Brad, looks like ya done good!
Got mine, looks so nice in it's box that I brought it to the field for the guys to drool over.
Thanks for all your hard work Brad, I'd never have had the patience or been willing to try to build a "jug" fuse style plane like this, and will probably stick to building what I normally build in the future for my kit/scratch builds. So flying this will be a treat.
Can't wait to get mine together!
EricV
-
Steve does the T-Rex come with more then one engine mount ? By the way yours is in.
Willis
-
>The Wright brothers were bicycle mechanics.
True, but they were much more, and having decided to tackle the problem of flight, they made themselves into scientists and engineers second to none in their own time.
Still, I do have a problem with this recurrent theme about the Wrights. Yup, in addition to scholars, writers, printers, publishers, and other things, they were indeed bicycle mechanics.
So let's cease mis-characterizing the Wrights, without at least understanding what they actually did. It's publically accesible.
SK
"I think the point about the Wrights is that you don't have to be a High Energy Physicist to be smart.
However the corollary is that it is possible to be dumb and be in any job!" --- quote from Alan Hahn
I never got the idea that anyone in this post or in other posts was trying to mis-characterize the Wright brothers. I don't think the people who keep bringing up the Wrights are meaning to diminish or ignore their education or engineering skills. I think those posters are using the Wrights as very good examples of the fact that someone can be smart, intelligent, and well educated without having an engineering degree. Just as you have suggested, an interested person can indeed read first hand what the Wrights wrote and left behind. One could become very knowledgable about this part of history without having a history degree or even going to college.
ps I have a degree (not engineering) and my desk at work is right by the senior engineers.
-
I never got the idea that anyone in this post or in other posts was trying to mis-characterize the Wright brothers. I don't think the people who keep bringing up the Wrights are meaning to diminish or ignore their education or engineering skills.
Wayne-
I'm really sorry for diverting this thread further from its original purpose, but I have to respond here that several times in the recent past the Wrights have been cited specifically as an example of achieving controlled flight without using mathematics and other engineering skills. Their being "just bicycle mechanics" was used repeatedly in perceived contrast to and in specific criticism of those who do apply mathematics and physics to aircraft - specifically models - and post their results on SH. The last such criticism ended in something about making themselves "look smart." Actually, the Wrights were just like those being criticised, except probably much more original and thoroughly dedicated...and I do admire good mechanics.
SK
-
Larry ,
I would like to have a copy of your Balsa BMP file too.
Does it come in a 4 lb. density LL~ n~ LL~
Scott
-
Scott,
I confess to a bit of "popping" (increasing brightness and contrast) to make it look like punk 4 lb. wood. 8)
My artistic friends preferred the opal chisel - well, several others. I'm continually amazed at the texturing and rendering capabilities of modern 3D CAD software.
L.
"Dost thou love life? Then do not squander time; for that's the stuff life is made of." -Benjamin Franklin
-
We've all met brilliant people with little or no formal education. I also know a couple of PhDs who
demonstrate that "anyone can get a PhD", and haven't a lick of sense, common or otherwise. But
I've also known at least one PhD who was the most brilliant, energetic, thoughtful, insightful, and
creative designers on the planet. So what? Relevance to Brad's T-Rex model airplane?
Take a close look at the PDF that Brad posted for this model; one cannot help but be impressed at
his detail and effort. Why anyone wants to nick Brad on this work, I cannot feature. For that matter,
why anyone wants to nick anyone for creating a model airplane design (or building/finishing/flying one)
is beyond me.
Thank heaven we have people who think differently. (Well, start with people who THINK! :o )
L.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders." -Hal Abelson
-
Geez
Are we supposed to fly ringmasters forever.? ???
Absolutely. D>K
-
I have been away from the hobby for about 5 years now but I would like to ease back into things using one of the engines I have on hand. As light as this plane seems to be in ARF form do you guys think that a ST 51 would work out ok? If so I might give one a try.
Thanks
Rick Henry
Yes. The ST 51 should pull the ARF nicely.
-
Enough with the cheap shots fellas. I know of at least one kitted design that is very very popular.....and it never won anything prior to hitting the shelves. I have first hand knowlege of it but so as not to out the designer, or get him involved in more bashing, I will save his name knowing full well that everyone here knows him. He hasnt won the Nats, some years has not even qualified, and yet many folks have found their wings so to speak with his designs and tutelage not to mention tons of cheap placques.
I watched a comedian last night on TV. He told of being confronted by an irate mother after a show because he said something was retarded. While it was the best word to describe the situation in his mind and many others, the mother took offense and told him" My son is retarded!" His reply," You just said he was retarded." Shrug of shoulders and lots of laughs. Different implications, syntax, and common modern vernacular amongst folks younger than you. If Brad had said" That is just silly!" Those offended would have been just as much put out.
Anybody who knows Brad and my own history, knows we have had a disagreement or two. We resolve it fairly quietly and out of the public eye. I count him as a good friend and an eye to eye peer of mine. Doug and the rest of the Dallas clan will attest to the same. Some of what I read here sounds like he is being bated. Im sure he feels it and is responding respectfully.
We were fleglings together, flying our own designs even before hitting expert level. Not every airplane is a world beater. My guess is that this airplane in ARC form will get some newer, or less inclined to design their own in the air
and competing. And I would not be surprised on bit to see several on the flight line at the Nats in 2010.
Brad doesnt need me to defend him, but if I can muster up some respect, all others can too!
-
I watched a comedian last night on TV. He told of being confronted by an irate mother after a show because he said something was retarded. While it was the best word to describe the situation in his mind and many others, the mother took offense and told him" My son is retarded!" His reply," You just said he was retarded." Shrug of shoulders and lots of laughs. Different implications, syntax, and common modern vernacular amongst folks younger than you. If Brad had said" That is just silly!" Those offended would have been just as much put out.
Brad doesnt need me to defend him, but if I can muster up some respect, all others can too!
Well put John.
Retarded is just a word that can be used to describe slow and undeveloped thinking. People that are "offended" by the word retarded are...retarded.
-
I think someone stated on lthe other forum: "Isn't it great to agree and disagree. Then still be friends." Have fun, DOC Holliday
-
Anybody who knows Brad and my own history, knows we have had a disagreement or two. We resolve it fairly quietly and out of the public eye. I count him as a good friend and an eye to eye peer of mine.
Heck, John, I think we had words once... More than a decade ago. HAHAHAHHA!!! We are getting old brutha!!!
I do remember my first designs. A lot of people said, "why don't you fly so and so's design????" Maybe my designs sucked back then. I did not care. I like the T-Rex... it is superior in every way to anything I have ever done.
-
You should feel proud Brad, like a new poppa! Thats a nice contribution to the CL world. Thats the way I see it, anyways! Nice job, I can't wait to see the other color schemes.
-
In today's jargon: "using the word 'retarded' is just so 'gay'"..
L.
"There's a pork chop in every can." -Mark Bowen, on nutritional value of beer
-
In today's jargon: "using the word 'retarded' is just so 'gay'"..
L.
"There's a pork chop in every can." -Mark Bowen, on nutritional value of beer
Larry, you never fail to make me laugh! That has to be one of the best of all comebacks ever!
-
Flew the T REX today. ST51,6.0 oz clunk uniflow,12x6 BYO (brodak) prop, 65 ft center of plane to handle lines,10 22 powermaster fuel.Airplane is 55 oz flying weight with the Tiger 51.After a tweek of the flaps and moving the tank twice and adjusting the needle valve, the orange machine became a very stable and nimble flying machine well beyond anything I expected.I got Steve Fitton to fly it and it's just as impressive from outside the circle as I felt it was from the center.With help from Willis,Steve,and the gang this will be one potent toy for my intermediate learning process! I can only imagine what bob's (both) electric and saito 62 versions are gonna be like,and to answer an earlier question the ST51 definately has plenty to spare in this bird!Quite honestly the most fun Iv'e had for the $$ in quite a while....Jim
-
Some pics of Welch's T-Rex from today. Brand new straight out of the box, the plane was pretty darn good, and should adjust to a killer plane. It presents awesome from inside and outside the circle as well. It improved Jimmy's pattern a great deal from the very first flight. Now I need to get mine put together....
-
That looks so awesome, but, I doubt if it would help me. Need to check to see if I can afford one. Now for the so called retarded people, some of lthem are a lot smarter than I am. It is great when you have one that can tell you when the plane is not doing what it is supposed to do. I have lost count of how many I have helped in CL and RC. DOC Holliday
-
Nice work Brad. It's no simple task to develop and bring a design to production and satisfy the masses.
Looks like you already have some satisfied customers.
Keep up the great work.
Paul Walker
-
Heck, John, I think we had words once... More than a decade ago. HAHAHAHHA!!! We are getting old brutha!!!
I do remember my first designs. A lot of people said, "why don't you fly so and so's design????" Maybe my designs sucked back then. I did not care. I like the T-Rex... it is superior in every way to anything I have ever done.
We be bruthas, no matter what! Yes, I am gettin old...so maybe we had one pissin contest. I caint member! Water under an old bridge. I like yer bird too! I will have one before the dust settles. H^^
-
It is too big for any engine that I currently have in my arsnel or junk barrel. I would, however like to fly one some day. Right now I do not think I could hold it as my hand is still really tender.
Bigiron
-
We be bruthas, no matter what!
Yes we be...
-
Bob Reeves side mounted Saito version. MEAN!!!!
(http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=14434.0;attach=50537;image)
-
Yes, obviously the typical foam wing suspended bellcrank is NOT original.
Coming up with a way to re-create such a thing in an ARF with a two piece wing is altogether another story. Especially if the goals were:
-make sure the the bellcrank was completely installed in the inboard wing and ready to go
-AND the USER does the final gluing of the mount.
I want the USER to glue in his own bellcrank. So, I came up with this stack ply/ply washer system that simulates the old foam wing suspension. No easy task actually.
No doubt well thought out, Brad. The best bellcrank installation of the ARF lot for sure, one does it oneself. I'm liking it, especially the 4 stroker. It looks industrial!
Chris...
-
I am waiting for a flight report using a Supertigre G51.
-
We, Phil Spillman and Willis Swindell, went out to fly Jim Welch’s T-Rex with a ST 51 today. As you can see by Phil's smile we liked the flights. There are now three new T-Rex’s ready to be built. Here is a before and after picture of mine your choice which is the before and which is the after. LL~ LL~
Willis
-
First flight today for this one with a four stroke.
-
Cool...I guess thats bob's...how did it fly?looks like 2 hands on the handle...inquiring minds gotta know..Jimmy
-
Cool...I guess thats bob's...how did it fly?looks like 2 hands on the handle...inquiring minds gotta know..Jimmy
Actually I put it together for another club member in exchange for a T-Rex ARC. Only one flight, was a bit fast 4.9 sec on 63 foot lines, need to drop the take off RPM. Also turned inside tighter than outside, easily corrected trim issues thanks to adjustable intake and controls. Sometimes you just know when you have a good one, this thing is going to be a killer.
-
You will find you need about 1/8 to 3/16 down elevator at neutral flap to be equal. I find this true with nearly every design I have flown.
Well, if the TR works with the side mounted Saito and the inverted PA and pipe (both in Tulsa) then we have demonstrated both extremes of cg and mounting flexibility and functionality at one field. My job is done here.
I highly recommend anyone using the Saito copy Bob.
-
Thanks for the info Bob, sure is tempting to do another with my Saito 62.The total trimming on my st51 version was a tweek of the outboard wing with the heat gun,exackly what brad said (1/8 down on the elevator) and moving the tank down 1/8 and flys perfectly.I guess i'll have to go plural and do another with the Saito 62 since I love my 4 strokes...thanks Jimmy
-
(http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=14349.0;attach=51919;image)
Bob Branch E-Rex from the Amped up forum.
-
Amazing finish.
(http://stunthanger.com/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=14349.0;attach=52110;image)
-
That looks absolutely gorgeous. Not too gawdy and reminds mu of some of the real planes of the 40's. Did I say I love the paint scheme.
-
Brad and John
thank you,
bob
-
Very cool and unique scheme! Definitely one of a kind. D>K
-
I do believe I have a spare Saito that needs a new home! I think this plane looks neat and I will be getting one! Good job Brad! H^^
-
Wasn't the pilot one of the Village People? YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYMMMMMMMCCCCA! LL~ LL~ LL~
-
Actually , if you are a hockey fan, he is a dead ringer for the Red Wing's Todd Bertuzzi. My wife noticed it right away.... oh, she is a hockey fan.
bob