Windy Days

[Dennis Leonhardi]

Who here flies different airplanes for different conditions, particularly wind?

And what's a good "windy weather" flyer?

Dennis

[Ken Culbertson]

It takes at least 15mph for most any fairly light stunter to be used as a wind flier.  I once had a Nobler wing and stab fitted to a profile that was a blast in wind.  Used a McCoy 35 on a 1oz tank to get it moving then flew as long as I wanted to.  For regular pattern flying I use the same plane regardless of the wind conditions.

Just Me, others will differ - Ken

[Brett Buck]

Who here flies different airplanes for different conditions, particularly wind?

And what's a good "windy weather" flyer?

     I just fly my regular airplane, it seems adequate in any wind you can reasonably stand up, and lots of approaches are OK in good conditions. But what engine/motor setup you use is the determining factor. There are two real and related issues, whipping up, and opening up the corners under load.   I will have to get back to this thread later.

       Brett



 

[John Carrodus]

Luckily we don't get snow here in Auckland, but we get our fair share of wind and rain through our winter. Luckily we can fly off grass all year round. If a howling gale (gusting 20 km/hr ) we fly mainly combat wings both modern and ye olde style. In windy conditions we encourage each other to give it a crack as any captain is a good captain in a calm sea. It often depends on what is stronger - the pilot's pride or his attachment to his /her model. Sometimes shorter lines are called for, some models are inherently more wind stable. A strong puller is your friend in wind at any height.

[Steve Helmick]

When I was flying Free Flight a lot, Bruce Kimball would sometimes pull out his Stunt Kite. He let me fly it once, and IIRC, it was a hoot and pretty easy to figure out what to do and when. I think we used two handles, but you can use a single handle if you just gotta.

Mark Sexton and I also flew his Combat Kites in my local schoolyard (before it was a banned activity). Single line, when trimmed correctly, they go straight when the line is tight and go into a 'glide' circle when slack. You pull on the line when it's pointed the direction you want it to go. A lot like flying a circle tow F1A, actually.

I know the above is a bit off topic, but "toughski-stuffski" as we used to say. I'm not convinced that there is any good reason to attempt flying traditional CL in windy conditions. Some models will be better at it than others. Sure, you can do it, but why?  Steve

[Lyle Spiegel]

My Smoothie with Fox 35 is the only plane in my fleet that does well in the wind.

[Air Ministry .]

reading a bob Hunt 80's artical / column , the other day .

He points out that theres WIND and Noo Jersey ' Turbulance ' in their cityfied flying sites .
And suggests 560 sq in. low aspectt ratio ' 35 ' size - . 46 powered ships , for where theres no ' clear air ' .

And goes on to suggest High A / R ( 7:1 ) work well in steady stable ' airfield ' unobstructed type WIND .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further , here in the warmer places ( orstrawlia ) theres big bubbles of THERMAL activity , woter unpredictable
naughty & disruptive . They have them in parts of the U S too . where you see all the pilots with heat postration .
( moving air - so comes under the general ' wind ' definition perhaps ) These are discontinuous to the surrounding
breeze .

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


NOW , if you want WIND , you can get THREE at oonce , here . The Picture below is from before the property developers screwed the joint .

The evening breeze often was from up over to the right . The circle is about 1/5 in from the lower left ,. As Above . with trees nowadays .
Theres a overlay breeze from lower left to upper right . With a ' up the gulf ' top layer , going top to bottom , off n on . BOTTOM PIC > .

Now . when the Americas Cup copped out as their boats sunk if there were any waves , past 20 knots - the air was right top to left bottom .
Left BOTTOM to Rt. Top in the pretty coloured picture of the desecrated farmland . 



So the  upwind tree was best avoided , by 50 yards . the downwind tree was best avoided by 30 yards , and the bigish solid tree with the branches 10 foot above the ground , was best avoided by 50 foot .
As the breeze blew threw underit . And sucked you into the ground . As there wernt really ' ground cusion , there then . Thisisin regular 20 - 25 - 30 knot . where the boaties were at the pub . 40 knots
steadied things up a bit . It was ALL turbulant and Moving , whirling 20 foot above ground .

25 steady and it was two hands and kick the heels in , as its softish . tickly in the wet season ( 3/4 theyear in N Z . ) leaping , sprinting and suchlike if you blow it , can get you back in ' control ' . 

[Air Ministry .]

C/L Stunt . by Bob Hunt . F. M. January 1982 . ( so this is pre thelater big bruiser piped ' norm ' . )

QUOTE . !!!!!!

Turbulance Vs Wind . ( by BOB . Im just transcribing ) .

During the past season of flying I had oc-
asion to judge a few local meets and also the
Nationals . The local conditions are general-
ally not ideal in that most of the fields are
surrounded by trees , buildings , etc. Clean air
is hard to find ! On the other hand, The Na-
tionals is flown at an airport type of field
with no obstructions near the flying circles .
One intresting observation from watching
the same ships flown in both types of conditions
is that a plane that flys well in turbvulance will
probably not be the hot set up in straight
wind and visa versa . The best ship in the tur-
bulance turned out to be smaller than aver-
age ( 560 sq. ins ) ship powered by a large mo-
tor ( S.T. .46 ). The plane that won two of these
local meets was also overweight for its wing
area. the larger ships , with lighter wing load-
ings, seemed to act like falling leaves . They
would'nt penetrate the poor air and flound-
ered much of the time . The smaller , heavier
wing loading ship just blasted through the
poor air. Intrestingly at the Nationals , the
larger ships handled smooth air extremely
well while the smaller planes showed their
weight. From these observations I have con-
cluded that if I were to fly at a local meet
with poor air conditions and turbulance, I
would want to flay a smaller plane with lots of
power. This means two planes ( at least ) for
competition purposes , depending on the type
of conditions expected. Many flyers wuill dis-
agree with me and say that one ship can be
trimmed to suit all conditions. I feel that the
best you can hope to achive with one plane
is a compromise .


Lets suppose that you want to build a
swmaller ship for such conditions . you would
want to first list the criteria for such a plane
and where it is to be flown.ost local con-
tests are flown on grass fields. These fields
are usually quite rough and will require a
ship with strong landing gear mounts. I
would probably opt for a fuselage gear or at
least a well sprung set of wing gear that is
solidly mounted. removeable gear would be
ideal.For the few local meets that are flown
off of pavement, the gear could be changed to
a stiffer type that had a more rearward axle
location. The pavement gear could be en-
hanced with wheelpants for even more ap-
peal .
I woul want to "  over power  " such a ship.
A large .35 design with a ST .46 would be
about right.In fact, several of these types of
planes have been built locally and are  perfect
for the types of conditions we are discussing.

Lower aspect ratio wings turn smoother in
turbulance, but higher aspect ratio wings
turn quicker. Ya takes yer pick here ! I would
go for the higher aspect ratio type and just try
harder to fly it smooth. I like the added
safty of the extra turn. For the same reason
I would employ a larger bellcrank for a bit
more leverage in the corners .
  Only flight trimming in the condituions at
your field will tell you what prop , venturie combi-
nations are best. I would start with a rather
 flat pitch to try and hold the speed down
while letting the motor put out more power.
In turbulance the idea is to keep moving. Lap
times will be dependant on  line length , but
will be generally faster than a clean air ship.
Again, the idea is to blast through.
  I'm going to build a ship to these parame-\
ters and I'll keep you informed as I go.
  Automobile racers use differant cars at dif-
ferant tracks, maybe we need more than one
ship for differant types of fields , too.

                                         (P) 55 .


De Jeja vu , Bob . 

[Matt Colan]

I fly the same airplane in calm conditions as I would fly in the wind. I won’t change planes

A good windy weather airplane is one that is in good trim, and has a good modern pipe/electric setup to prevent the windup. I did some prop testing in the wind a week and a half ago and a good prop is also critical to prevent insane amounts of windup, even if you have a good engine setup

[Dennis Leonhardi]

Thanks for the feedback, guys!  I'm not a stunt flyer; any serious competitor could probably score more points on inside loops than I could flying the entire pattern, but I've been involved in competition in many forms for lots of years.  If I were to compete seriously, the two-ship approach makes sense to me.

I have watched many stunt patterns at the Nats and lesser contests and judged the event many times.  Bob Hunt has summarized what I've seen - smaller, heavier, low aspect ratio models seem to handle serious wind best.  And I've seen Smoothies perform better than most on those days.  The Smoothie has a fairly "thin" wing too.

But - does anyone want to put in hours of practice with 2 fairly different airplanes?  How difficult would it be?

[John Carrodus]

Mr Air Ministry you talk about Australia but Manly Beach in your photo is in Auckland NZ so your comment about Americas Cup now NZs Cup fits your report

Cheers John

[John Park]

Over here in this little island called Great Britain, a strong, gusty wind is the norm for much of the year - some people call it 'standard British contest weather'.  If I want to indulge in a bit of fun flying when it's really blowing hard, I have a Peacemaker (the 36 1/2" span profile version that GMA designed for AeroModeller magazine) which I built with a thin-section wing - NACA 0015, with a D-tube LE for strength and rigidity.  It flies fast on 52ft. lines, with a PAW 2.49cc diesel turning an 8x6 prop., and handles most conditions quite well.  I got the idea from a model called Loriot, which Claus Maikis designed specifically for windy-weather contests, but it also echoes the typical early-to-mid-'50s British approach to stunt model design, as in Brian Hewitt's Stunt Queen or Peter Russell's 334G.

[Dave_Trible]

I'm building myself a new Shameless for the early spring training sessions here in Kansas where it can very very racy and turbulent at my flying field-better than not flying at all.  I'll put a Tigre .46 on it.   However it is amazing how well some of the 1950s I beam airplanes ( Ares, Neptune, Ballerina,  etc.) will handle the wind, even with the Fox.  Makes you wonder if they knew something back then we forgot or if it was just luck with size, weight and power.....

Dave

[Ken Culbertson]

I'm building myself a new Shameless for the early spring training sessions here in Kansas where it can very very racy and turbulent at my flying field-better than not flying at all.  I'll put a Tigre .46 on it.   However it is amazing how well some of the 1950s I beam airplanes ( Ares, Neptune, Ballerina,  etc.) will handle the wind, even with the Fox.  Makes you wonder if they knew something back then we forgot or if it was just luck with size, weight and power.....

Dave

Dave I don't think it was the I-Beam so much as the way we flew.  Everybody I flew with knew how to wind fly dead stick in a reasonable wind.  That taught you how to use the wind and with power added wind was not as much an issue to the pilots then as it is today except perhaps at the highest levels.  Now we approach wind by overpowering it.  I think the skill set has been lost.  The winds were no different then, as they are now.  I have flown two of the planes you listed and in a stout breeze they will wind up.  Dealing with it is another skill set we seem to have lost.

Ken

[Brett Buck]

Dave I don't think it was the I-Beam so much as the way we flew.  Everybody I flew with knew how to wind fly dead stick in a reasonable wind.  That taught you how to use the wind and with power added wind was not as much an issue to the pilots then as it is today except perhaps at the highest levels.  Now we approach wind by overpowering it.  I think the skill set has been lost.  The winds were no different then, as they are now.  I have flown two of the planes you listed and in a stout breeze they will wind up.  Dealing with it is another skill set we seem to have lost.

     What skill was lost?  Everyone with much experience knows how to deal with the airplane whipping up, and uses it when necessary. The difference is that all these supposedly lost skills involved fudging it to ensure you get through (as the recently posted NATs video shows). Nobody does that to a great degree, but it's not because they don't know how to, it's because *you won't be competitive* doing it that way.

      Now, you simply can't afford to do it like that, you have to try to do your regular flights with the same sizes, corners, etc as in ideal conditions despite the wind. Because if you don't, someone else will, and you will lose. The airplanes do fly drastically better in these conditions, and as a result, people will certainly go for it and not fudge at all. If you push it a little too much and get blown out or crash, well, too bad, you lose, but someone (or a lot of people) will make it, and you will lose anyway. So there's no upside to all these older techniques.

   There was no doubt a real skill involved in flying Fox 35/ST46 type airplanes in the wind. The recently posted 68 NATS movie showed Bear at his peak doing something absolutely masterful. Fly the same flight today in those conditions and you'll get killed.

   Brett

[Ken Culbertson]

 What skill was lost?  The skill set I mentioned was dead stick wind flying.  I haven't seen anybody do it in nearly 40 years, including me.

Ken

[Air Ministry .]

Whens a plank wing NOT a plank wing ?

Won the Pommy Nats a few times . Tony Effilander Free Bird .



Similar wing on ' oh no not another Spitfire ' was good in wind . Overlight horns'd tend to get overpowered by 20 Kts steady & firm , but still full scheduleable .
SO , if your a plank  Wing tragic , and its seldom calm , ellipticalateing the ends can get SMOOTH fight without all the rock ' n ' roll .

[Air Ministry .]

What skill was lost?

Sprinting to keep the lines tight . 

[Steve Helmick]

Mr Air Ministry you talk about Australia but Manly Beach in your photo is in Auckland NZ so your comment about Americas Cup now NZs Cup fits your report

Cheers John

When I was in Sydney in '83, I rode the Italian built hydrofoil ferry to Manly Beach. After seeing Matt's post, I looked for it on GoogleMaps, and the two didn't look alike. But for that matter, it doesn't quite fit what I remember, either! I recall some nit getting in the way on a sailboard, which didn't make the skipper happy. Ferry boats on their normal routes have the right of way. Not sure why it's not called "starboard of way", though. Yuk, yuk.  Steve

[Air Ministry .]

Hurumph .



More my era of the olde briney . tho I was FOUR ! .


Was a photo of the Brother & I in there , before being sent out ( of the way ) to paint the car . " AND DONT PAINT THE WINDOWS  " . 
The turkeys called in , plotting & schemeing around 92 , so he wrote a spoof for yachting N Z about a challenger with plywood sails ! .

Traveled to most Yacht Clubs in the North Island in the mid 60s . Standards are slipping , was a magic place in those days . Before McDonaldification .


Wernt to many pious snots back then . The Yacht Club there was middle , 3/4 up . In the B & W pitcher . The Wind comes down through the gap, middle left ,
and at right angles , higher . Over the pines you can see there !



Another ' hopper Gang ' development , treated effluent to the estuary , shellfish beds at entrance . phew Eh . Real Cunning , Hori .


Had a eight or ten year old trained up for the inverted starts - stand clear - turn , re - enter & restrain - Big Mewgull - Merco 49 , there . till his R C father came calling . Bit beyond his kin .
Flew well in 15 knot steady , but cracked a roll in the transition tru to top wind , only in the inverted part of the O Head Eight , think it was . Great plane to fly , IF youre onto it ! .

If someone finds a 3 Oz lead sinker there ( It didnt go thru the front cottage wall , there  ) the Hurricane / G-51 lost it . They load up a bit in the squares in a breeze , Mewgull was good tho .
.
Though thats largely CLEAR AIR , not turbulance . unless its up the hill in the farm paddock around sundown .Another mile or two off ( below the bottom of next picture ), up a way .
 Often calmish  at mid day . At the water . Flying while the windsurfers & white Caps are about . *! Tourists these days . Birds seem to accept Twin Launch instructions no sweat .
UNLIKE SOME PEOPLE we wont mention . 

[Air Ministry .]

This is the ' home field ' of the youth , tho more developed then , UP 1/3 - 3/4 Rt . ( by the creek ) the bald patch up mid across is where  the previous generation flew .
Act. its half up that straight . same size . THAT is the New School , 1950 odd , we were 65 / 75 there . THIS is a ANCIENT PHOTO , real ancient , wonder how they flew then .


So you got a variety of ' coastal ' weather , some balmy , some less so . But Gales & it has you working for your keep .

Fong  a poor row ah , Eh was 2002 / 2005 ish , ofinon . While they played leakey tubs , tickularly . Flew near daily then . Pre US 2002 ? world champs .
a few were a ' hold on and pay attention ' .

theyre not ' going ' till the waters half way up the side windows , so we saw . Right Captain Nemo  '. The Nautalis ' is it ? GOING ABOUT .  wots all that lead , why dont it sink .


http://abrushwithsail.blogspot.com/2012/04/lean-green-racing-machine_7500.html

The wind speed indicator had been of the top of the scale for two hours ( 75 + ) Flew a combat wing , from shelter . - Couldnt stand upright in ' the funnel ' where it caught the wind .
Cording to ' The Olde Man ' hull was flexing 6 in at times . He spent time below studying it . ' bloody idiots ' . He regained his calm . After a few weeks . Hyperventilating , Id say .

So , theres ' wind ' and theres ' wind ' , like when all the Flying Dutchman ( 3 crew 14 ft. ) got blown all over the gulf , from Browns Bay , there . Still cant figure if it was the olde bat school teacher caused it .
They were somewhat despotic .

I believe they call that ' A Squall ' . ( theres record of it somewhere , 1962 odd . big recue call out . entrants spead far and wide  ) .

Now THIS is YACHTING .


rackateers might not agree .

[Sean McEntee]

When I was flying Free Flight a lot, Bruce Kimball would sometimes pull out his Stunt Kite. He let me fly it once, and IIRC, it was a hoot and pretty easy to figure out what to do and when. I think we used two handles, but you can use a single handle if you just gotta.

Mark Sexton and I also flew his Combat Kites in my local schoolyard (before it was a banned activity). Single line, when trimmed correctly, they go straight when the line is tight and go into a 'glide' circle when slack. You pull on the line when it's pointed the direction you want it to go. A lot like flying a circle tow F1A, actually.

I know the above is a bit off topic, but "toughski-stuffski" as we used to say. I'm not convinced that there is any good reason to attempt flying traditional CL in windy conditions. Some models will be better at it than others. Sure, you can do it, but why?  Steve

     The reason to practice in windy conditions is to know one's model and how it will handle in the wind.  Rarely are conditions perfect on contest day, and if one drove a significant distance to the contest, it would be a shame to either sit and watch or fly and risk piling in a model.

      On the kite piece.  When I was a kid, I used to fly those delta-wing kites, and I would try connecting multiple rolls of string to get it to go higher.  Knowing what I know now, the kite would get to the point where the line was too heavy and, rather than getting higher, it just got farther away; the line pretty much parallel to the ground. Fast forward to my last Army trip to Ft Rucker.  A few buddies and I would go down to Panama City Beach, FL for the weekend and party.  On Sundays...for some strange reason...we would go down to the beach and fly kites. With the pratfalls of my youth in mind, I got 5 kites and strung them in series.  That attempt was successful, and the top kite really got up there.  So much so, that it began to interfere with the departure path of a tourism heli.  We didn't get in trouble; we just knew to move down the beach and get out of the way.

[Matt Colan]

I know the above is a bit off topic, but "toughski-stuffski" as we used to say. I'm not convinced that there is any good reason to attempt flying traditional CL in windy conditions. Some models will be better at it than others. Sure, you can do it, but why?  Steve

At the start of the 2022 flying season, one of my goals was to get better at flying in the wind. I felt it was one of my weak spots in my flying, and if I want to make the top 5 at the NATS, I have to be able to fly in the wind. I used to get so nervous flying in the wind, I would just hope I got through it. After spending quite some time this year flying in pretty sporty conditions, the wind now doesn’t bother me. In my own head, I make it such that I feel like I’m at an advantage flying in the wind compared to others and I go in supremely confident and usually come out pretty good. I know how my plane is going to act, and I know what I need to do to get the plane through the pattern.

[Dan McEntee]

   The big thing is to know the difference between wind and turbulence.  And then to fly as much as you can in each to know what your limits and your model limits are. You won't know until you try to fly.  Flying in straight line winds is something you can learn and get better at. Trying to fly in turbulence where you get to see the airplane from every angle in a lap or two just isn't worth losing an airplane over, unless the judges are scoring 10 foot bottoms!
  Type at you later!
  Dan McEntee

[Brett Buck]

     The reason to practice in windy conditions is to know one's model and how it will handle in the wind.

     Matt has the answer - the reason to practice in the wind is to *build confidence that you can fly in the wind*.

       Brett

[Air Ministry .]

' Moving through the Currents ' from 20.000 leauges under the sea .

Seems to me ' Air ' would be a bit differant in Alaska from Arizona . !
America being a Big Place , with varying climate , and geography ,
there must be many differant atmospheric and seasonal ' Conditions ' .

Kiwiland , is high A/R small oceanic ! Air typically moist damp thick .

Australia is a fair sized Continant . The currents come from affar ,
Often heated , sometimes billowwing , sometimes B F  FFFreezzzing .

Here in the blue mountains , theres weeks where a Man Carrying kite seems like the Best Option .

SO , theres ' GUSTS ' but these can hammer thru in half a second , or for the full duration , of say the loops .
Theres billowing rolling air . Multi Diretional air - sometimes from far off differing ' areas ' . etc etc etc .

O.K. a Werwage Quote " Each successive Thunderbolt I have built
has had a wider , deeper fuselage and has come closer to the 6:1 principal * . I have noticed no discernable loss in performance
because of this , and these models may be among the most stable in turbulance and wind I have flown "

* ( I think the 6:1 is a presumption based on VOLUME ( Fuel Qty ) to DRAG , at a assumed ? airspeed . Rather than a ' Least Drag ' overall , forular .  )

WHAT ive wondered is if the BROAD - as in DEEP flat fuselages , in a strong sidewind - convert the side winf force - ENERGY - into ' Wind Up ' in manouvres .
Also , theres a ' Squishing ' type end on to wing ( tip to tip directionally ) force . Noticeable with  steady breezes of saY 15 KNOTS , ONTO THE ' GROUND EFFECT
( fudge )  more adheared to earth flow .  Tho you still get it more in below 50 degree manouvres , where the ' flattening ' effect is generating force into the aeroplane ?

I think the fully rounded / moulded  ( Rabe Bearcat / sea fury ) type fuse.'s probly tend less to absorb the windforce ( Catch It ! ) than slab sided ones ..

[Matt Colan]

     Matt has the answer - the reason to practice in the wind is to *build confidence that you can fly in the wind*.

       Brett

To expand on the confidence just a little bit…during the first day of qualifying at this year’s NATS, the wind came up and was maybe 10-12 with gusts to 15. Confidence was so high, Derek caught me laughing after a square 8 where the corners came thick and fast! The wind was such a non factor at that point I was just having a good time

[Brent Williams]

Wind still makes me pucker a bit.  I'm just an advanced level flier.

Here's one thing I observed very recently at the 2022 Vegas contest.  The second round had some sporty but manageable wind to contend with.  The Masters fly-off had some really sporty wind to contend with, however.  The talent level of the Masters was very high.  David Fitzgerald, Chris Cox, Howard Rush, Kestas Dvarvydis, Steve Harris. Nobody switched out their planes for their special "wind" plane.  David Fitzgerald flew the final, and winning flight of the contest in a strong wind.  To my eyes and ears, the only thing I saw David do to adjust his airplane for the wind was to possibly increase the launch RPM just a touch on his PA75.  He started the engine, set the needle, stood up, and then reached down again to give one final tweak by ear which sounded like the RPM increased slightly.  As always, David's winning pattern was a fantastic display of confidence, talent, and horsepower.  As I overheard Howard Rush say, "that's some good stunt!"  And it was! 

[Air Ministry .]

http://flyinglines.org/pw.flyinginwind1.html

http://flyinglines.org/pw.flyinginwind2.html

http://flyinglines.org/pw.deadair.html

Flying in the Wind, Part 1,2 ,etc .

 

http://flyinglines.org/walkerstunt.html

Hold On & Grit the Teeth . Try to avoid distractions .  The nanoseconds count . X Ft Per Sec . So keep your undivided attention on the task at hand .

I think probly the most troublesome aspect IS ' keeping the mind on the job at hand ' after youve got say 200 Hours total air time , youve got fairly conditioned reflexes ,
as in , youll probly do the right thing . 9 If the plane will hack its another question . No Flex Controls are the prime requisette , for howling gales .And Evelynn Tensions . 

Like a M'cycle or Race Car - it tends to go where youre looking - DONT look ' crash ' or you go through the fence . Other is ' Dont Blink ' , a lapse of concentration and theres
a big gathering it in - or a hole in the wall , flying lessons ( often painfull on a motorcycle ) or a interuption of the space time continum . Two Objects CANT occupy the same space at the same time .

CONCENTRATION- lapses or distractions - So ' Mental Discipline ' is the key . Fully Focused . The ' Visualiseation ' as in running through the whole thing , on site . Preferably AT the Circle Center
helps get it In focus , quicker .
I know Im all at sea at unfamiliar flying sites for say the first 1/2 dozen flights . Background far off ( Which'd give less turbulance ) is less distracting - Till your familiar with the visuals .

[Dave_Trible]

' Moving through the Currents ' from 20.000 leauges under the sea .

Seems to me ' Air ' would be a bit differant in Alaska from Arizona . !
America being a Big Place , with varying climate , and geography ,
there must be many differant atmospheric and seasonal ' Conditions ' .

Kiwiland , is high A/R small oceanic ! Air typically moist damp thick .

Australia is a fair sized Continant . The currents come from affar ,
Often heated , sometimes billowwing , sometimes B F  FFFreezzzing .

Here in the blue mountains , theres weeks where a Man Carrying kite seems like the Best Option .

SO , theres ' GUSTS ' but these can hammer thru in half a second , or for the full duration , of say the loops .
Theres billowing rolling air . Multi Diretional air - sometimes from far off differing ' areas ' . etc etc etc .

O.K. a Werwage Quote " Each successive Thunderbolt I have built
has had a wider , deeper fuselage and has come closer to the 6:1 principal * . I have noticed no discernable loss in performance
because of this , and these models may be among the most stable in turbulance and wind I have flown "

* ( I think the 6:1 is a presumption based on VOLUME ( Fuel Qty ) to DRAG , at a assumed ? airspeed . Rather than a ' Least Drag ' overall , forular .  )

WHAT ive wondered is if the BROAD - as in DEEP flat fuselages , in a strong sidewind - convert the side winf force - ENERGY - into ' Wind Up ' in manouvres .
Also , theres a ' Squishing ' type end on to wing ( tip to tip directionally ) force . Noticeable with  steady breezes of saY 15 KNOTS , ONTO THE ' GROUND EFFECT
( fudge )  more adheared to earth flow .  Tho you still get it more in below 50 degree manouvres , where the ' flattening ' effect is generating force into the aeroplane ?

I think the fully rounded / moulded  ( Rabe Bearcat / sea fury ) type fuse.'s probly tend less to absorb the windforce ( Catch It ! ) than slab sided ones ..

  Just a note to your last sentence.  It has been my experience the radial engine-style stunt ship has a big pitfall in the wind.  That cowl catches/scoops a lot of air which tend to be pulled around like a fish on the hook.  There may be something to the idea that side area in general can be problematic in the wind.  You can make some toothpick looking airplanes to help with that (we did in the Tigre .46 era)  but you are then giving up a lot of curb appeal......

Dave

[Air Ministry .]

Thanks .

Tripped over THIS , Was well mannered . You could feel the flying surfaces ( ALL ) ' Kick In ' after it decided to stop waffling along to slow , on one flight in calm
The bulky front & taper  - sudden noticable transformation , under power from the slow 8 stroke 6 second trip . THIS wasnt a usual ' you could walk faster ' mode !
Was relitively light on the lines . tho C G belcrank pin & leadouts coincided . Could even be C G aft of pivot , depending on muffler . V Firm Ex islands Q grain 1/4 sheet
movey bits and stab / fin .

TIP WEIGHT , was decidedly firmer on the brief ( it fell off ) 1/2 flight it had more ( extra 1/2 Oz  ) but as it wasnt inclined to go for the pilot , I left it as was .
Untroublesom , 63 in , ST G 51 , worked way best on the 10x6 3 blade . Though Billowing air 20 + had me looking at a 10X4 3 blade & the irvine 40 R E in it .

BASIC SHIP , bar the fancy fuselage . Not far off of a TANGO ( Compostella ) Airfoils near SV 11 without the wood ( i.e. 1/16 thinner Each side ) Far out and Groovey .
Note the Aerodynamic balance ears on the elevators . I think this helped it hold the groove in manouvres . Power steer ish . More Load equaled More Balance Force ? .

( been mulling over a P-47 , so your comments appreciated . )

[Air Ministry .]

What do you make of THIS , Dave . a bit of diheadral . Wing planforms scale . likely 54 span and Como 51 loop scaveneged on a 4 in pitch .  H^^The cowl would be near sym. airfoil section , maybe 5/8 with ROUNDED
entry , so thg ' hole ' cross section would be a inch smaller than the outside edge drawn . Likely some ' steering vanes ' for the internal airflow . Said to be as important drag was as external . A bit of air goes through it .

visualise a 3/4 ball at the enty , top & bottom . Parrallel to outer for first half , then taper aft to zero , at the scale line there ( at  firewall / gills . ) . So the interior of Cowl through to engine is a good bit smaller .


Got the measuring stick out on Bill Werwages P47 drawing . Side On , discounting canopy , is around 5 1/2 to 1 ( A. R. ) In plan , more like 11 1/2 to one . Using the knotted string method . 2 marks on a piece of paper .
one above'd build as  bubble or razorback  added on from the same plug . . but first , theres the mold / plug to do . . .

[Dave_Trible]

Looks nice.  I'd just try to keep the frontal open air intake as minimal as you can, but still keep a good airflow going through for cooling.  Most of the more successful semi scale radial airplanes in the past 'fudged' on a truly round cowling or opening mostly to keep the frontal area down so as not to steal too much engine power and open blade disc area.  To solve this today we have engines with lots more power to start with.  I'd think in terms of a .60+ for something like this.  I built a Zero and an Avenger in the past where I wished I'd have upped the power (both had the PA .40) but flew well except in the wind.  They were both closer to scale in fuse width and cowl proportions which gathered too much air at times in strong prevailing wind, pulling the nose wherever it chose.  The last airplane or two that Al Rabe built used much bigger engines than the ST .60 that he used in the original Sea Furies. 

Dave