Author Topic: best non flapped plane (Read 3318 times)

sleepy gomez · « **on:** November 02, 2010, 08:35:06 PM »

What would be the best non flapped stunter and why. Comments on the airfoil thickness would be very welcome

Wynn Robins · « **Reply #1 on:** November 03, 2010, 05:40:29 PM »

Mike Pratts Primary Force would be number 1 - the doctor by Ted Fancher a VERY close second.

Russell Shaffer · « **Reply #2 on:** November 03, 2010, 06:34:05 PM »

I flew Willis Swindell's Primary Force and was very impressed. I'm not good but that airplane flew nice for me.

afml · « **Reply #3 on:** November 03, 2010, 10:04:16 PM »

OK......
How 'bout this one??

`

Or this.....for OTS.....

"Tight Lines!"

Wes

Kim Mortimore · « **Reply #4 on:** November 04, 2010, 12:05:16 AM »

Quote from: afml on November 03, 2010, 10:04:16 PM

.....Or this.....for OTS.....

Wes

This raises the question: best for what? Learning the pattern? Entering Beginner, Intermediate, Old Time? Profile or built-up fuselage? Scratch built, kit, ARF? What size engine?

As for airfoil thickness, most modern flapless planes that are good stunters have airfoil thicknesses ranging from about 16% to about 20% of cord. The Flight Streak and Skyray have the same 18% airfoil. Thicker wings can be built, but the Law of Diminishing Returns kicks in, which means that drag increases faster than lift beyond a certain point. Most older designs, such as the Ringmaster, have thinner wings, but some can be made to fly well if built very light. The most competitive Old Time planes all have airfoils that fall within the modern range. Wes's very cool looking Feno (love those flames!) has such an airfoil.

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #5 on:** November 04, 2010, 09:24:00 AM »

Flite Streak. I never liked my Primary Force.

Kim Mortimore · « **Reply #6 on:** November 04, 2010, 12:02:56 PM »

Quote from: Dennis Moritz on November 04, 2010, 09:24:00 AM

Flite Streak. I never liked my Primary Force.

Dennis,
Could I ask what you dislike about the Primary Force? I'm planning on building a modified PF, and wouid like to hear your input.

Thanks.

Serge_Krauss · « **Reply #7 on:** November 04, 2010, 02:11:06 PM »

I pancaked mine in inverted a couple weeks ago ('don't know what made me do that!), breaking the fuselage vertically into two and almost three pieces - not a difficult fix. Still, this seems like a good opportunity to strip off all paper and finish, redrill to replace the LA-.40 with my LA-.25 and refinish light, without the extra engine and prop weight up front and 3/4 oz in the tail. I know I can finish lighter , but a cowl cheek may fix engine run problems. I never thought it turned as quickly as it should at 41 oz. I might put in stub ribs, since I had a lot of sag between the full ribs. I may sharpen the stab too. I'll bet that even with the cheek and stub ribs, I can get it down to 36 oz like the rest of the world. Well...maybe.

SK

Randy Powell · « **Reply #8 on:** November 04, 2010, 02:12:39 PM »

I'm in the minority, but I like the Coyote. I learned the pattern on one. It's easy to build and flies pretty well if it has enough power.

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #9 on:** November 04, 2010, 04:02:36 PM »

My PF was an ARF. The nose was soft. Difficult to tame vibration issues. Nose was so soft it actually warped inward when I put an aluminum plate on the nose, opposite the engine, a platform on which to anchor the mounting nuts. Tightening up on the bolts caused the nose to bow. I used plastic wedges so the engine would point out instead of in. Plane never cornered well. Simple flapped planes, like a Twister, work much better. IMHO. I had a 40 with a tongue on the front of the PF. Perhaps an LA25 with a tongue would do better. Less mass to turn. Also I'm not in love with the single spar, sort of I-beam wing construction. Too much twist. Rather use double spars and some webbing.

proparc · « **Reply #10 on:** November 04, 2010, 09:22:52 PM »

Magician-don't argue with me!!!

Kim Mortimore · « **Reply #11 on:** November 04, 2010, 09:35:18 PM »

Quote from: Dennis Moritz on November 04, 2010, 04:02:36 PM

My PF was an ARF. The nose was soft. Difficult to tame vibration issues. Nose was so soft it actually warped inward when I put an aluminum plate on the nose, opposite the engine, a platform on which to anchor the mounting nuts. Tightening up on the bolts caused the nose to bow. I used plastic wedges so the engine would point out instead of in. Plane never cornered well. Simple flapped planes, like a Twister, work much better. IMHO. I had a 40 with a tongue on the front of the PF. Perhaps an LA25 with a tongue would do better. Less mass to turn. Also I'm not in love with the single spar, sort of I-beam wing construction. Too much twist. Rather use double spars and some webbing.

Thanks Dennis.

Quote from: Serge_Krauss on November 04, 2010, 02:11:06 PM

I pancaked mine in inverted a couple weeks ago ('don't know what made me do that!), breaking the fuselage vertically into two and almost three pieces - not a difficult fix..... Still, this seems like a good opportunity to strip off all paper and finish, redrill to replace the LA-.40 with my LA-.25 and refinish light, without the extra engine and prop weight up front and 3/4 oz in the tail. I know I can finish lighter , but a cowl cheek may fix engine run problems. I never thought it turned as quickly as it should at 41 oz. I might put in stub ribs, since I had a lot of sag between the full ribs. I may sharpen the stab too. I'll bet that even with the cheek and stub ribs, I can get it down to 36 oz like the rest of the world. Well...maybe.

SK

Serge,
Maybe the

made you do it. Too bad that an extensive conceptual and mathematical understanding of the principles of fizziks that govern our flying toys doesn't confer immunity from pancaking and other mishaps, or you would never ever crash!

My PF weighs in at 42 oz, and that's with an ARF wing and scratch-built fuze and tailfeathers (the stab/elevator weighs about 1/3 what the ARF units weighed). That's with an OS25FX ball bearing + tail weight. Your lighter engine idea sounds like a good one. Also your cowl cheek idea. I've been having a lot of engine run problems on profiles lately. The plans for the Coyote show wide, rounded cheeks on both sides of the fuze and no plywood doublers. This is taking it to an extreme, but it's possible that thin doublers and wide cheek(s) may give the most bang for the buck when it comes to maximum nose stiffness and vibration damping for a given weight.

Quote from: Randy Powell on November 04, 2010, 02:12:39 PM

I'm in the minority, but I like the Coyote. I learned the pattern on one. It's easy to build and flies pretty well if it has enough power.

Randy,
Interesting factoid: Ted said that the Coyote was a precursor to the Doctor and Medic, which can be seen in structural similarities of the wings. An Aero Tiger .36 powered Coyote won Classic at one local contest. Not too shabby.

John Sunderland · « **Reply #12 on:** November 10, 2010, 11:04:28 PM »

Midwest Magician...hands down...modified slightly but bangs hard corners all day long at 34 oz. and powered with a B40.

RogerGreene · « **Reply #13 on:** November 11, 2010, 07:43:00 PM »

I had a Galaxy back in 1963 and from what I can remember it flew better than a Flight Streak. I believe it had a little thinner airfoil. Is it still kitted by someone?

Roger

Roger Vizioli · « **Reply #14 on:** November 11, 2010, 09:22:29 PM »

Quote from: RogerGreene on November 11, 2010, 07:43:00 PM

I had a Galaxy back in 1963 and from what I can remember it flew better than a Flight Streak. I believe it had a little thinner airfoil. Is it still kitted by someone?

Roger

Roger G.
Brodak is a source for the Galaxy.
Roger V.

Mark Scarborough · « **Reply #15 on:** November 11, 2010, 09:59:21 PM »

Well today I had the pleasure,, well sort of,,( it was a balmy 44 degrees F outside!) To fly Rob Smiths scratch built Ring master 526. Its a profile with 526 inches^2 of wing, non flapped. Designed by Pat Johnston to look like a ringmaster. Dee Rice flys a 576 which is the same , but bigger. It really impressed me. very nimble quick corner, but very easy to stop the corner. his is powered by a Rim Fire .25 outrunner on 4S. weighs 37 ounces IIRC.
VERY solid flying plane for being onlly on its first flights. We worked on a few trim things but overall a very competant plane

RogerGreene · « **Reply #16 on:** November 12, 2010, 12:59:04 PM »

Roger V.

Brodak's Galaxy has straight wing tips from LE to TE and the kit I had was similar to my AETOS's wing tip, sweptback for the most part except the TE tip was swepted forward. Hope this makes sence... I can't find a picture of mine, may be some one has a photo or plans. I belive it was made by Guillows.

Roger G.

rustler · « **Reply #17 on:** November 12, 2010, 01:09:41 PM »

Ole "Blue Pants" takes a lot of beating. Thick airfoil.

sleepy gomez · « **Reply #18 on:** November 12, 2010, 08:24:19 PM »

In regards to light weight what about these thre planes that I have: 612 sq. in. @ 47 ounces LA 40; 710 sq.in. @ 50 ounces LA46; 896 sq. in. @ 59 ounces OS FSR 45. Are these sizes and weights in line? No real effort was made to make them lighter. Rusteoleum looks good but it sure is heavy.

Serge_Krauss · « **Reply #19 on:** November 14, 2010, 12:20:26 AM »

Sleepy and Ty-

I didn't go to my Tom Morris chart, but this is what I got:

1) (47 oz)/(612 in²) x 144 in²/ft² = 11.06 oz/ft²

2) (50 oz)/(710 in²) x 144 in²/ft² = 10.14 oz/ft²

3) (59 oz)/(896 in²) x 144 in²/ft² = 9.48 oz/ft²

Well, I multiplied and divided. I suppose someone will complain about that too - but not you two. 'always enjoy your posts.

SK

Dennis Moritz · « **Reply #20 on:** November 14, 2010, 06:58:35 AM »

I've been flying a Brodak Galaxy for many years. Decent looking when built, paint chipped and monokote patched, now. A fun sport plane, no doubt. The big flapper in the back will stall her easy enough. A bit of discretion allows the tricks to look pretty good. Not a serious competition bird. But a fun flier that works best speeding around. Competition planes fly slow, stay out on the lines when flying slow. Hard to bite off a corner or keep a bird securely out on the lines when flying slow. Which leads to the complexity and sophistication of comp power supplies and the aerodynamics of stunt war wagons. The previous is, of course, not news. The Galaxy is a fun sport bird lacking the sophistication and stunt ability of flapped birds designed to do the tricks for points. My Galaxy has served well doing what it does best. Messing around. In a pinch I've used it in competition. It has done all right in Intermediate. Definitely not my first choice tho, if I want the best score I can do. I dig the looks of the Galaxy, also. A dinosaur. Pterodactyl. I think Streaks fly somewhat better. Better airfoil. You can fly them slower and they'll go faster with a similar amount of power. The last sentence in no way represents a scientific observation. Streaks bring a smile to my face. Millions of those birdies were alive once. Galaxies on the other hand are a more exclusive club. Hmm. Feel like knocking out another one... light wood... hmm... wonder if...

sleepy gomez · « **Reply #21 on:** November 14, 2010, 10:37:23 AM »

After asking the question I thought I better show you photos of the planes. I don't use any balsa. Construction is white foam and poplar. I make wheels and all control hardware. Cover is silkspan, gelatin, and usually dope. Cover on Tapeworm is clear packaging tape. Silk is 896 area @59 oz. DoubleTime is area 710 @ 50oz. Tapeworm is 612 area @47 oz. Thanks for all the information, SLEEPY

I hope the photos come through, I have had trouble with this before (computer dumb)

sleepy gomez · « **Reply #22 on:** November 14, 2010, 11:08:58 AM »

I'll try this one more time, maybe.....

phil c · « **Reply #23 on:** November 17, 2010, 09:23:11 PM »

This one flys pretty well with an LA 46 turning an 10/4 prop at 12,000+ rpm, 750 squares, 65 in. span 49 oz. That puts it around 9.4oz/sq.ft. Me, I prefer 15.3 sq. in./oz which relates directly to how tight it can turn.

wwwarbird · « **Reply #24 on:** November 17, 2010, 11:38:59 PM »

Primary Force gets my vote.

sleepy gomez · « **Reply #25 on:** November 18, 2010, 09:55:25 PM »

Thanks for the opinions and numbers on my planes. If you will indulge me once more And since the weights are okay I would like to describe my type of building to achieve this weight. Being on a fixed income and liking to build, the cost is very important. First I don't use any balsa. I have a table saw. Home Depot is the source for poplar boards and .220" ply. The white foam (1 lb.) has to come from a foam supply in Dallas or Abilene or sometimes from packaging material. I have a variable transformer that I use with my wood cutting frames to hot wire the foam. I hot wire cut foam with no helper or machine. I even have a simple rig where I can cut elliptical wings in both planform and airfoil.
One of the planes is SILK, a biplane. It has 896 sq. in and weighs 59 ounces as Serge figured out that is 9.48 ounces per sq. ft. The fuselage structure is the .220 ply on both sides with .060 poplar top and bottom. The fuse is foam filled and 1 1/4" wide. There is no measurable torsional movement when I hold the fuse at both ends. The cabane struts are also .220 ply. The wings are foam with top and bottom poplar spars. The airfoil is 16% thick. The tail feathers are 3/8" thick foam. All flying surfaces are covered with medium silkspan. NEVER sand foam without using a sanding block! Finish with 600 grit and then apply wet silkspan. First apply a coating of 50/50 Elmer's (white glue). After all is dry use Knox unflavored gelatin applied hot mixed one packet to 1 1/2 ounce of HOT water. Apply liberally (it is light) to make the foam impervious to dope, lacquer thinner, etc. Now use paint of your choice. No tricks are employed in this procedure. SILK, along with the other of my planes. Costs less than $22.00 USD.

Ted Fancher · « **Reply #26 on:** November 20, 2010, 09:27:57 AM »

Quote from: Randy Powell on November 04, 2010, 02:12:39 PM

I'm in the minority, but I like the Coyote. I learned the pattern on one. It's easy to build and flies pretty well if it has enough power.

Me, too, Randy.

Ted

john e. holliday · « **Reply #27 on:** November 25, 2010, 09:54:13 AM »

Hey Ted, I know you won't push your own stuff. But, the DOCTOR and INTERN has to be the best profile non-flapped planes going. Still flying a Mike Pratt PRIMARY FORCE that is just as good. But, people have to read the instructions and set the planes up to perform. Did I ever tell you about the flying of the DOCTOR after repairs from the NATS that David F. pointed out to me. Had flown it several times and this one day the DOCTOR just didn't feel right. I thought maybe the spar had given up again. Was at home doing the cleaning of the plane when I noticed the wing tip weight was gone. It was found on the floor where I hang the DOCTOR.