stunthanger.com
General control line discussion => Open Forum => Topic started by: Russell Shaffer on May 28, 2013, 02:34:05 PM
-
Now while memories are still fresh about the Northwest wind, I am looking for suggestions for a windy weather plane. Not the absolute best plane, because I want to stay in the 25 to 35 engine range, so that leaves out the PA 75 approach. My Fancher Medic is a fine calm to medium wind flier, but it is a kite in 15+ MPH wind. Maybe something with a tapered wing, a little heavy for its size, and fly it faster than normal?
-
Now while memories are still fresh about the Northwest wind, I am looking for suggestions for a windy weather plane. Not the absolute best plane, because I want to stay in the 25 to 35 engine range, so that leaves out the PA 75 approach. My Fancher Medic is a fine calm to medium wind flier, but it is a kite in 15+ MPH wind. Maybe something with a tapered wing, a little heavy for its size, and fly it faster than normal?
My Brodak Ares with an OS 35 and 10-6 Powerpoint prop has always punched through windy and turbulent weather without a problem. The only air I've found it doesn't like is the hot, thin stuff. At the NATS it was falling out of bottoms on squares and triangles consistently.
-
The Smoothie was designed as a windy weather PA plane, but was turned into an OTS and Classic competitor by the rules and time marching onward. You could fly it in 3 events, a plus. y1 Steve
-
Not a 35 but not much more expensive if you shop around a little. Top Flight Score with a reverse running Saito 56/62 on 63 foot lines will tackle anything the big boys will fly in. If you can't find a Score maybe Brodak has a Legacy ARF. Reason I'm suggesting an ARF is you won't be afraid to fly it when the going gets tough. The Saito will do the job for allot less than a PA. Last 56 I bought cost me $100.00 from an RC guy and it was like new.
-
Bob lives where the wind blows, so he oughta know.
-
Hi Steve
Which Smoothie, the plan I have shows a different wing section to the Brodak kit version?
Thanks
Paul
In OZ
-
I had a Buccaneer 740 (Brickhaus design) that handled the wind very well with an OS 40, and I suspect it would be better with a 46. His Legacy 40 would probably be even better, give Crist Rigotti a call as he flew one for a while. The plans are available from PAMPA.
James
-
Hi Steve
Which Smoothie, the plan I have shows a different wing section to the Brodak kit version?
Thanks
Paul
In OZ
Paul, I'd expect that the plan you have would be based on the Veco kit, which apparently was "kittified" to fit more ribs on a sheet of 1/16" or into a standard box...always a bad thing. You can buy plans for the Brodak kit, and just the wing ribs, if you wish. The ASP/Magnum square head .36 would be perfect. I believe there is a legit inverted engine version...I'd do that, you betcha! The TT Cylcone 11 x 4.5 works real well on the .36, and the inverted engine install would give a bit more prop clearance. H^^ Steve
-
Russell: You might consider the Gieseke Nobler with a .36. I've had two with
Thunder Tiger 36s in them and they are very good wind fliers. Bob G always
engineered his planes with handling the wind in mind. I flew mine at the VSC
about 10 years ago late in the day in practically a gale and it cut right through
and I ended up with a very respectable score to finish 11th that year.
Steve
-
I know it's a bit bigger than a 35 but the Firecracker handles the wind with ease.
The photo is Brian Eather in 1982 with his Starduster, the forerunner to the Firecracker.
He took this plane to the World's in the USA in 1984 and came 10th.
Check out the tapers.
This is what my current plane is modelled on and it handled the gale in Bulgaria OK.
-
Having both a Brodak kit Smoothie and a Brodak ARF Smoothie and flying in the perpetually windy San Francisco area (flying field about 50' from shore of Bay) I vote for the Smoothie in the .35 size range. Have not seen anything better. Stay far away from the thin-winged Veco version. LA40 power in mine but Brodak 40 or LA25 would probably be fine. Or older OS .35 or even a Fox .35, though modern engines are so much easier and don't need all that castor.
BTW I also have a Score with Enya .61 that flies fine in the wind. It is retired now so is available if anybody wants it.
-
I know it's a bit bigger than a 35 but the Firecracker handles the wind with ease.
This is actually a good example of what you are looking for! The idea is high double taper wing. Last year, I built a .15 size to try this idea out. The model handles the wind as well as my full on competition model.
http://syampolsky.fotki.com/model-airplanes/kmd-stunt/
I believe there are four key elements to a good wind model:
1) Use high taper to keep the model from constantly yawing and rolling from the wind.
2) use a NACA 0018 type of airfoil with a blunt leading edge. This helps the model to avoid hunting in level flight and acceleration in a loop
3) Use appropriate wing loading. It should not matter what size a model is(to a degree, I'm exaggerating) as long as wing loading is the same. In other words a 380sq. in., 35oz model will have the same wing loading( 35/(380*0.00694444444) = 13.2 ) as a typical 650sq. in., 60oz PA75 powered model( 60/(650*0.00694444444) ) and should handle the wind just as well
4) this one is obvious: overpowering motor spinning a low pitch prop.
When was the last time you flew a .15 size model(380sq in is small) powered by a Brodak 40 spinning 10.5x4.5 APC prop?
Oh yeah, and don't try it with 60' lines! go for 54'-52'. The effect is tremendous!
P.S. I was using not your typical .15 weakling. I was using a dual ball bearing diesel called KMD 2.5 diesel, spinning a 9x5 like it's nobody's business.
-
I have the ultimate answer for you, and Bob Reeves knows what it is,(Claudio Chacon knows what it is too. LL~
That said, since I suspect you won't be going that route, I have flown Mark Allen's Gieseke Nobler with his Enya 35 BB down here in Texas and, I was extremely impressed.
The other guys are correct in that, the Smoothie has long been held as the traditional wind ship. The trick is to put plenty plenty muscle in the nose,(isn't that always the trick?)
-
People with pipe experience can weight in here better than I can. I have only flown other peoples' piped ships.
Brett, Ted and Howard certainly have the experience.
What makes one stunt model better than another in windy conditions is more of a function of the power train than the model itself. And piped ships do better of removing the wind than non-piped ships. Yes, it is possible to get a non-piped engine to run that can be flown as well as a similar design with a tuned pipe, but it is not a slam dunk arrangement. It takes a special non-piped engine tuned to do that and there are not many of those around.
And a comment about model design. My experience with a design of my own and observing/judgeing others with high aspect ratio wings is that a high aspect ratio stunt ship, like with a 6:1 aspect ratio and above does not do well in the wind. The higher the aspect ratio, the worse they are. Yes, I have seen several that did "OK", but the pilots were well above average and the planes have been trimmed to as good as they could probably get.
Keith
-
I'd think that taper would help. It does for combat planes, as does forward sweep.
Electrickery should help even more in the wind, particularly with clever autothrottles such as Igor's.
Proparc, does your ultimate answer involve the number 4?
-
My biggest problem in the very turbulent wind was rolling. I was getting a view of the entire wing top several times on each lap. The airplane felt like a fish pulling on the line. Level flight was not possible for me.
-
As I heard said of Paul Walker, it's not the plane it's the pilot.
-
Ha, not always.
In Bulgaria when the winds were horrendous, the low taper Yatsenkos (Classic) were really affected by the wind.
They rocked and rolled badly in level flight.
The Shark was better as they have an elliptical type wing with smaller and thinner tips.
-
I know that elliptical planes are better in turbulent winds, but just wind is a matter of skill. Well, that and power. It's one of the reasons my new ship is an elliptical design.
-
I know that elliptical planes are better in turbulent winds...
You do? Maybe so, and I'm happy that you think so, because your elliptical planes have been your prettiest.
-
Original 'Smoothie' from 1952 A.T. plans (inverted engine)....Aero Tiger .36.
-
Howard,
My elliptical designs sure don't bounce around as much at Salem (one of the more turbulent sites we fly at). I don't tend to see both the top and bottom of the wing in hard corners with these designs. Unlike some of the high aspect designs I've tried.
-
Ha, not always.
The Shark was better as they have an elliptical type wing with smaller and thinner tips.
Good point, my design has high taper not just in the top view but also when looking from the front. The root tip is almost twice as thick as the tip rib. It also improves rigidity of the wing by a LOT.
Keith's answer got me curious enough to check the aspect ratio of the wing on the model. Turns out it was 4.64: in line with his statement. Another valuable nugget of knowledge to help me design the next model.
Steve
P.S. My new "kick" is flapless designs but the challenge is to have fly in very windy weather. Two of the three sites I fly at are near the ocean and the winds are "stiff". Wimpy designs need not apply ;D
-
Howard,
My elliptical designs sure don't bounce around as much at Salem (one of the more turbulent sites we fly at). I don't tend to see both the top and bottom of the wing in hard corners with these designs. Unlike some of the high aspect designs I've tried.
Randy,
How does elliptical wing compare to a low aspect ratio wing? What's your take on it?
-
My biggest problem in the very turbulent wind was rolling. I was getting a view of the entire wing top several times on each lap. The airplane felt like a fish pulling on the line. Level flight was not possible for me.
You weren't the only one having that problem!
By the mid second round it was nearly unflyable. Conditions like that are handy if you forget your AMA number, as every now and then the plane shows you that number!
-
Russell,
What lap speeds were you flying in those conditions? How long are the lines and ho much does it weigh? I forget what your power source is.
-
Proparc, does your ultimate answer involve the number 4?
NO!! ;D
-
Paul, my lap times are just under 5 seconds on 57 foot lines. The plane has 470 square inches at 34 ounces and a LA 25 with an APC 9-4 as fast as it will turn it. It flew well on Saturday in far better conditions.
-
A Vector 40 should work when powered by a healthy FP40, Tower 40, LA46 or PA or Aero of that displacement. Crank the needle in some. A swept back leading edge, a moderate thickness airfoil, and reasonable wing area for a 40 or 46. ARF, ARC or kit.
-
NO!! ;D
Now you have me trying to figure out what the heck are you talking about ???
-
Russell,
That's a pretty small, light, and underpowered plane to be flying in those conditions. Line tension is your friend in those conditions and that setup isn't going to generate much.
As others have suggested, something larger with a bigger motor.
-
By the mid second round it was nearly unflyable. Conditions like that are handy if you forget your AMA number, as every now and then the plane shows you that number!
Only if you have a spare pair of undershorts.
-
Now you have me trying to figure out what the heck are you talking about ???
There is really nothing more for me to say because, our own illustrious Paul Walker answered it perfectly!!
-
No pro here but some observations....
Brickhaus designs are based on Randy's SV technology, by his own admission.
And many hours of conversation with Bob (The Man) Gieseke always came back to "V" shaped wing tips for the wind. That is NOT rounded off tips like the built up Aldrich tips, or typical carved blocks. Pretty, but not for wind!
Just my 2c
My plan would be G' Nobler with a Randy .36 or .40 ultra lite. Could even consider a pipe with that combination....I also know that Lou Wolgast of Tuscan had a nobler with a super Tiger .46. in it for a while! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
W.
-
NO!! ;D
Yeah, right! LL~ LL~ LL~ LL~ **) **)
-
Paul, my lap times are just under 5 seconds on 57 foot lines. The plane has 470 square inches at 34 ounces and a LA 25 with an APC 9-4 as fast as it will turn it. It flew well on Saturday in far better conditions.
I suggest you avoid trying to set 5 second laps on shorter lines. Instead, needle for comfortable rotation speed. basically, get the model flying fast enough that you are turning with the same angular rotation speed as a larger model that flies on 67' at 5.2sec/lap.
The model I posted a link for earlier, was 26oz and it flew very well on 52' and it was comfortable rotation wise, if not a bit too slow for my tastes). When I lapped it, the stopwatch showed 4.5sec/lap. I suggest trying this setup. You will find that the model flies a lot better on 52' than on 57's.
-
Steve, would you have a plan or sketch of that model? You sent me the rib files some time back and I could build a rough copy of your plane from the photos but if yours works I would rather just build it the way you did. Thanks, russell
-
Steve, would you have a plan or sketch of that model? You sent me the rib files some time back and I could build a rough copy of your plane from the photos but if yours works I would rather just build it the way you did. Thanks, russell
Russell,
I don't have plans for it. It was an experiment for my personal pleasure and I didn't make any drawings. I did take many measurements. I am attaching Excel spreadsheet that has most of the dimensions. The first column on the left is last year's model called "KMD Stunt". It's named after the .15 motor that was used on the model. The second model is an enlarged version that I think will be perfect for something like Brodak 40. I've made some adjustments to make model parameters a little closer to what Mr. Fancher recommends. He recently posted very insightful commentary on the Engineering forum that compliments his original findings with the Doctor design.
I think this new model will be even better and I would have built it this year but house renovations take priority. I do plan to build it over the next winter. It will be a full fuse, oval shaped, clamshell molded construction and a sidewinder configuration.
P.S. If you decide to build the smaller model, I have a buck I used to make the leading edge mold. I can send it to you if you like.
-
No pro here but some observations....
Brickhaus designs are based on Randy's SV technology, by his own admission.
And many hours of conversation with Bob (The Man) Gieseke always came back to "V" shaped wing tips for the wind. That is NOT rounded off tips like the built up Aldrich tips, or typical carved blocks. Pretty, but not for wind!
Just my 2c
My plan would be G' Nobler with a Randy .36 or .40 ultra lite. Could even consider a pipe with that combination....I also know that Lou Wolgast of Tuscan had a nobler with a super Tiger .46. in it for a while! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
W.
Ward, here is a visual of my 'V' or (Mr. G?) tips for illustration. I've thought of these as double dihedral tips which do have a strong damping effect on rolling oscillations, much like a FF ship.
-
Lots of good stuff here. Thanks to all of you.
-
Right on, Dave!
W.
-
Russell,
While there are good comments here, I kinda think you need to look at your needs and the conditions in which we normally fly here in the NW.
1) Wind and bumps and so on as seen in the afternoon Sunday at the NWR are rare. Aren't they?
2) Assuming a really terrific wind-flier were even available, are you saying it is worth building such a device for rare conditions? Refer to 1) and your answer.
Besides, I think there is more to this when it comes to wind-capable designs.
To wit, the worst conditions for me to have ever flown in were several years ago during Expert PA at a Stunt-A-Thon in Puyallup. Had an Impact with me; by then it had been fitted with a Saito 56 and a "magic" two-blade CF prop from the Cox/Resinger duo. My best model at the time and in practice there had been really positive signs as to its capabilities in wind.
And I had a (relatively) unmolested SIG Skyray 35 with me, this fitted with a BB-TU O.S. 20FP. Model had been used to win Profile Stunt on Saturday.
I could afford to lose the Pukey Profile. With nearly a full season ahead I was not interested in doing the yard-sale thing with the Impact.
The Skyray served me nicely on both days. Two events, two wins.
Okay, that's just fact. Now imagine that I was the first to respond to your query, detailing the 20FP, 9-inch prop, plastic tank, (pretty much) standard SIG kit with nothing like the tricks seen in my Wimpacts or now the W500.
Am I saying you should build another Pukey Profile, this fitted with a small-bore motor and a prop which "everybody knows" simply will not, can not, work in windy conditions?
No, I am not. But I would much rather see you do that then to proceed down the path toward an ultimate wind-capable model.
My best,
Dan
P.S. Sorry, but it should have been mentioned earlier that the Impact itself has features and a history which indicate it to be much more than merely competent in windy conditions. I believe this to be by design. dan
-
P.S. Sorry, but it should have been mentioned earlier that the Impact itself has features and a history which indicate it to be much more than merely competent in windy conditions.
Impact is a capable design but I doubt a 25-35 range motor will pull it LL~
-
Impact is a capable design but I doubt a 25-35 range motor will pull it LL~
Dan's Wimpact is downsized, profile version of the Impact that runs on an LA 25. More details I do not know.
I've only been flying competition for three years or so, but I've already been to a few contests where I would have welcomed a plane that was better in the wind, even if it did not sacrifice all-around performance just to do better at that one thing. I've certainly had many a practice session where I would have done better with a good windy-weather model.
-
Try This . 8) though I think Id P51A / Apache it . Keep looking at the Miss R J picture .
(http://clamfold.aerosports.net.au/clubcomp/20111016/20111016-31.jpg)
" Mustunt Bjornwall .29-.35 span 51 ½” semi scale P51B mustang 3 sheets PRICE K "
PAMPA listed . Was building one that wouldve finished at 40 Oz , back in 75 , as R J .
Built three F4E / F s , useing the wing & moments / areas . 10 gallons through a 25 one
FSR clone , on a worn down floppy 10 x 6 Tornado @ 9 1/2 with the tips l.e. worn round
from the grass strip . FSR 25 Phantom was 45 / 47 Oz. ish . sidewinder . orig. OS 30 43 Oz.
Despite numerous wipe outs , was intact when given the chop . Change to a 9 x 6 Tornado
if its blowing over 18 knots . Never broke the black ' wind ' prop . catalouge of other crashes
etc , hit tree , conc. inverted in bunts ( must keep the eye on the plane . and FLY SMOOTH )
broke up line . If lines tight it hits square & less inclinded to break ( dont ask . :P)
Used 55ft. of .018 7 strand in 'official ' 20 / 25 & 30 knot ' breezes ' . Gets you focused ! LL~
Original 65 Job was Gentiles Shangrila '
(http://www.acesofww2.com/USA/aces/gentile/gentile-color.jpg)
now THIS looks Familiar .
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRVgtGKal81n6bjPJXakpxqqE6so2thG6A86FHecsMKGCYFYNpgTdZWA_YL8w)
%^@
The Phantom ( Mustunt Wing ) flew fine with the C.G. 3/4 in. behind where shown on the Mustunt plan .
Didnt like the slack ( 5 m.m. at elevator t.e. ) & bushed horns . Oh Dear . wobble weave porpise etc .
' unbushed ' almost , but 4.5 m.m. slack aint quite enough . The old flap / lift / incedence conundrum .
Meet . . .
(http://www.redpegasusdecals.com/images/flightlineimg/Miss_RJ_1970-2.JPG)
-
TEOSAWKI models will handle severe wind gust , competitive with the best of the un flapped models, and better than alot of flapped pa models in high winds , 630 inches, la 46, 38 ounces, combat fai style wing construction , set up with low pitch prop is a hard combination to beat
-
If only they were still available.
-
there is a HUGE difference between wind, and turbulence,, what I saw in Eugene that was problematic was not the wind, I have flown well in wind faster than what I flew in there, what is tough is the turbulence coming over the trees,, its boiling,, just like Dan mentioned,, Puyalup is horrible that way when the wind blows over the hanger and restaurant,, turbulence is much more disturbing than wind,,
-
Well said, a straight wind is mucho easier to fly in. At what was supposed to be a control line circle at City Park, could not do any overhead maneuvers or verticals if there was any wind.
-
Russ, I believe a plane as you desire might be Dick Williams " Electra". Mine is 50 ounces & steady power...you might look into that design.
john
-
there is a HUGE difference between wind, and turbulence,, what I saw in Eugene that was problematic was not the wind, I have flown well in wind faster than what I flew in there, what is tough is the turbulence coming over the trees,, its boiling,, just like Dan mentioned,, Puyalup is horrible that way when the wind blows over the hanger and restaurant,, turbulence is much more disturbing than wind,,
Here's my take on this:
Strong steady wind requires horsepower. Turbulent air requires high wing loading(at least in full-size airplanes).
-
Would have thought that a thinner and flatter wing sections in the wind is desirable too.
I seem to recall that Vintage British combat models lent on this theory quite heavily.
-
Russell. I think you are singing the "NW Regionals Blues". And for good reason. Many flyers, including myself, were at the mercy of the trick wind currents above 45 deg. Many, also including myself, were blown out of overhead 8s.
Maybe Dan has it right: that is how it is here. I have yet to see a plane that really, really flew well in wind.
I could also give some suggestions, but I think my ideas have been covered already. (like: Legacy with a .60 engine)
Because of said wind conditions, I have given up on any engine less than OS46LA, with the .60 size being nicer.
Floyd
-
If you insist on staying with a 35 size airplane, the Gieseke Nobler with an Aerotiger 36 is in my experience the very best of the lot...hands down.
Built around 40-42 ounces they will handle the wind as well as much larger airplanes.
Steve Moon suggested this very early on and he is definitely right...I've had several over the years powered with everything from Fox 35's, FP40's, a Double Star 40, and the Aerotiger 36. The Aerotiger properly setup and propped regulates almost as well as a piped engine.
If you really want to fly in wind and not worry very much, an SV11 or an Impact with a PA65 and pipe is really Magic...and I'm not kidding...Nothing really beats the power and control of the PA65 on a properly setup pipe when the wind blows...get it adjusted and leave it alone...no matter what, it always works.
Really turbulent conditions demand a pass unless you're Paul Walker, Bob Hunt, Bill Werwedge or one of that ilk!
I suppose the electric junk can work very well also but it's a whole different learning curve... I'm prepared to try it but currently haven't seen one really work as well as a good PA setup...at least around here. Also the pipe only puts oil on the bottom rear of the fuselage LL~.
Randy Cuberly
-
If you want a windy weather plane no matter if it is straight or choppy, put a Nelson Pylon .40 in the nose of a Nobler and let it rip. 3.5 lap times and tons of tension. Of course the stresses on the structure may shorten the flight. Also max line length might be required. LL~ LL~ LL~
-
I don't know how well this fits into the discussion, but my USA-1 was the best wind flier I have ever had. 53 oz., ST G.51 from Tom Lay, 3 bld Eather prop.
BIG BEAR
RNMM/AMM
-
Strong / ridgid contol surfaces . Strong Tailplane , non twisty fuselage . Stiffish everything else , - wires - no stretch . no bendy flaps / elevators , horns or pushrods .
Maybe shorter lines if a howling gale . Needs 25 Knots to get a yacht moveing nicely H^^
Try This ( & part 2 ) http://www.iroquois.free-online.co.uk/schedule1.htm
Strong nerveves and an accute sense of preservaton . Not to metion being quick on youre feet . LL~
-
Also the pipe only puts oil on the bottom rear of the fuselage LL~.
Randy Cuberly
[/quote]
Excellent point Randy. Yeah, I get used electrons all over my plane!
-
Also the pipe only puts oil on the bottom rear of the fuselage LL~.
Randy Cuberly
Excellent point Randy. Yeah, I get used electrons all over my plane!
Yeah, and those stray electrons tend to embrittle the balsa and the glue and cause all kinds of problems!!! LL~ LL~ LL~
I have it on good authority that they are responsible for all of the instability problems I've seen...the sticky controls are likely caused by premature aging of the plastic in the ball links caused by the constant electron bombardment...they may even cause embrittlement of the stainless lines and result in the dreded fly-aways!
<= <= <=
I gotta stop!!!! LL~ LL~ LL~
-
Sounds like you need one of these . S?P
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qH7MwwBjCWg/Tou5x3mLhvI/AAAAAAAABDk/8sUR0lQVlm0/s1600/EP.jpg)
Talking about loose joints , something for rough air or wind needs top quality No 1 fits & joints and glueing .
and it might pay to use just a bit tougher wood for spars , and glue instead of noseweight , up front .
Saw a electric foam swept wing thing , R/C explode most realistically , as it pulled up full tit of the end of the field
where the wind comes up the slope . Just like the one on the Farnborough Film . ;D
The dreaded Control Flutter . Airframe wise the bits are earning their keep , so something with a bit of grain in its usefull .
Should bow , not snap , under load . Bending a wing across youre knee normally gets the opposition a bit excited .
Not sure whatd happen if you tried it with theirs . :!