Fellow CL Scale fliers,
The 2010 CL Scale NATS are history. 
Here are the results.

Clancy

That looks like a great turn out.  Hope every one made safe landings.  Thanks for the report.   

 Flying inverted in Scale???

If it was a scale model of an aerobatic plane, inverted flight is an option.   

It was an Aircobra profile in fun scale. 

Chris
All that I remember of that flight was that the engine quit while inverted, Fun Scale I think, and he knocked the rudder off on the inverted landing.  He had it back on Sunday to fly again.  Technically the flight could have been DQ'd for loosing parts off the model.  :-)
Clancy

Chris
All that I remember of that flight was that the engine quit while inverted, Fun Scale I think, and he knocked the rudder off on the inverted landing.  He had it back on Sunday to fly again.  Technically the flight could have been DQ'd for loosing parts off the model.  :-)
Clancy

I see, you guys were definitely being generous with a 2!
Chris...

Wellllll, inverted flight is a legal maneuver.  This hairsplitting business based somebody's "personal knowledge"  of some particular fight manual is nothing more than an attempt (by people whose airplanes barely fly) to deny inverted flight to those who can.

Any fighter, racing, or aerobatic plane can go inverted for 30 seconds or so, which is all a CL Scale model needs to do.  True, the fluid systems won't let most of them fly upside down forever, but they can do what a CL Scale plane needs to do.

To counterattack, I suggest that any such plane as mentioned here that can't at least do a loop should be HARSHLY downgraded.  There's nothing realistic about a Pitts Special or a Mustang that flys like an overloaded bomber.

//SNIP//
To counterattack, I suggest that any such plane as mentioned here that can't at least do a loop should be HARSHLY downgraded.  There's nothing realistic about a Pitts Special or a Mustang that flys like an overloaded bomber.

As you wish. Some judges may follow the rules requiring ascale model to do those maneuvers that the subject aircraft can do. Right now MOX NIX.

As far as a loop -- or cloverleafs, chandelles, lazy 8s, immelmans, roll-ins, aileron rolls, barrel rolls, cuban 8s, and such are concerned, they all maintain a POSITIVE G force, thus are not relegated to inverted flight.

Current AMA Rule Book:
"4.9: Inverted Flight (Option). This flight maneuver is for models of aircraft that were designed for inverted flight. Aerobatic aircraft and fighters usually qualify for this maneuver. The model should make three smooth, stable laps in an inverted position at normal flight level height. Height should remain constant for optimum points."

It would be a fairly fast model that completes 3 laps inverted within the 10 seconds, or would that be a "scale 10 seconds" which would be a VERY fast 3 laps. 

Actually the underlined rule statement was, IMO, written and accepted by more model persons that those that have been there done that. Now I don't have a clue about civil aerobatic aircraft but military I have some clues about. ATC, SAC, MATS, and ADC when they existed.

Hoss
I know your background in Military aviation and would like your comments on a couple of planes.

The FW-190 used a fuel injected engine.  Should it be able to sustain inverted flight?
Any jet powered plane?

Thanks
Clancy

Clancy, I am definitely NO expert in that field. Most of my information came from those "Old Timers" that I was associated with back in the late '50s until 1962, when I was in the B-47. Many of these guys were fighter and/or bomber pilots in WWII. With the many days we sat on ALERT around the countries, I asked far too many questions, but I did gather a lot of information that much has slipped away.

The FW 190 series were very different airplanes, like many American and British machines. The FW-190 'short nose" series were radial engines however the original design never allowed for adequate cooling venues around the cylinders. They were plagued with overheating and failures. Although superior to any spitfire they had problems. In addition until the FW-190D long nose series came out with the in-line Jumo engine and a fan cooling system along with the liquid, the BMW engine problem on the short-nosed originals was never fully satisfied. In addition there was an attempt to use a Jumo liquid cooled engine in the short nose, but I don't think that was ever operational.
The long nose D and TA 152 were all just a wing forward extension of the FW 190A itself. They did cut the tail section and move it back IIRC some 2 feet. The bulge is just in front of the horizontal stabilizer.

Now to your question: The Jumo had a different oil system and probably could do sustained inverted flight. The BMW 801, I don't know, but it was a radial and radials  could sustain considerable damage.  My only actual flight experience was with the Pratt and Whitney R-2800. That was some kind of engine, but I never flew a C-123 inverted!    BTW, the P-47D Manual prohibited negative G maneuvers.

 Back to your question: When I went through USAF pilot training, there was a Norwegian student in my class. He remembered German occupation. He told me that many German Stuka pilots were dying young from brain problems caused by the technique of pushing straight over into bomb runs with high negative G's.

Somewhere I read that the ME-109 used negative G as a last resort to escape enemy fighters, yet negative G straight (inverted) would not be a challenge. Most Fighter and or Trainer aircraft are not stressed for more than 3G negative. A pilot will 'red-out' (blood in the eyes) if he holds -3 G for much time. Making an inverted turn at 3G would be easy pickings for someone on your tail. 

So Clancy, you guys have to make those decisions. I do think the ME-109 could fly inverted straight and level until the pilot became completely nauseated, which may be for something less than 1 minute. 190, I doubt so.