Author Topic: Bi-Planes (Read 13667 times)

Ron Merrill · « **on:** June 22, 2006, 12:55:24 PM »

This is a question that has been asked a 1000 times, but why are there no really completive stunt bi-planes in .60 size. I really love two wings and they look good in the air. Hope this is not a dumb question.

peabody · « **Reply #1 on:** June 22, 2006, 02:46:59 PM »

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #2 on:** June 22, 2006, 04:33:57 PM »

Trimming a multiple-wing plane is a real challenge, especially the fine trim needed for competitive PA. You can make it fly, and fly pretty well, but I don't know if you could ever make it fly great. Adding the second wing increases the trim problems by about a factor of 3, seems like. Vertical balance becomes very significant, as well as equalizing the drag above and below thrust line; then there's the increased side area that the wind messes with; lessee, what else? Setting the wings parallel with each other makes it unstable; a couple of degrees negative incidence on the top or positive on the bottom seems to help, for whatever reason...set the wings too close together and they mess up each other's lift; too far apart and you produce moment arms too long from that vertical COG; downthrust is nearly always a must since the things tend to balloon, and who knows what that does to inverted flight...These are things I've found, and I don't even know what I'm doing. I love biwings and triwings but then I'm not a competition stunt flier either. They just look cool lumbering around. that's my opinion and I'm stuck with it, er, sticking with it.

--Ray

Walter Hicks · « **Reply #3 on:** June 22, 2006, 07:10:38 PM »

Don Hutsensons Stearmans fly competitively.

Jim Thomerson · « **Reply #4 on:** June 23, 2006, 08:32:36 AM »

Second that on Don's Stearman as I have had the pleasure of judging him flying one. Plans in Flying Models, as I recall. Biplane in capable hands has won OTS at the VSC a couple of times. I think it is simply a matter than no top flier has sat down and decided to campaign a biplane.

Eric Viglione · « **Reply #5 on:** June 23, 2006, 07:38:06 PM »

Owen Richards scaled up a Dixon 38 Special and put a full body on it with a DS 61RE. The thing actually flies a nice corner! It seems to have been more of a novelty item for him, for some reason, and I haven't really seen him fly it often, but I think the idea worked out great.

Eric V.

wmiii · « **Reply #6 on:** June 23, 2006, 08:15:47 PM »

Quote from: Jim Thomerson on June 23, 2006, 08:32:36 AM

Second that on Don's Stearman as I have had the pleasure of judging him flying one. Plans in Flying Models, as I recall. Biplane in capable hands has won OTS at the VSC a couple of times. I think it is simply a matter than no top flier has sat down and decided to campaign a biplane.

But remember, the OTS pattern doesn't have, square eights, hour glass, triangles. I've watch Bart fly it and agree it's fun to watch. Bart
stated that you have to be really carefull, something about a stall. I
would like to build the Orwick .64 version someday though.

Walter

c.maikis · « **Reply #7 on:** June 30, 2006, 09:40:53 AM »

Hi friends,
I really don't think that biplanes are as bad as many people think. Probably nobody has ever tried to really design one for serious competition.
I flew my Duetto bipe in the late 80s, and quite successful, at that. Honestly I think that I got some point gifts from the judges, but I won a few contests with Duetto, and you cannot do this with a bad airplane. I had put all my knowledge about stunt design ( how ever much that is !) into this model, and it flew right off the board, as they say. One drawback: in very hot weather it didn't like the hourglass corners.
One of my friends wanted to build a biplane, too. I gave my plan to him, but recommended to increase the size slightly and use a ST60 ( instead of my ST46 ). My friend is not a top pilot, but looking from the outside I got the impression that he did in fact fly just as well as usual.
Now a pilot from France has asked me for the plans. The model has just been finished, I'm waiting for his comments.
Last not least Luciano Compostella ( several times European Champion and many high placings ) has flown his Falco design in many big European contests and has won them or placed high. If my memory serves me right he used a big four stroke engine ).
I'd be really interested to know how the Biceps biplane flies. Is there any good flyer who can give a competent judgement?
Regards, claus

c.maikis · « **Reply #8 on:** June 30, 2006, 09:48:58 AM »

Second attempt !!
Somehow I only managed to include two photos. Here are the other two: the "Twini" of my friend Lutz ( who was very pleased with his model ) , and the new airplane of Thierry Sonier ( France ) which is the same design.
claus

Bill Little · « **Reply #9 on:** June 30, 2006, 11:51:57 AM »

Hi Claus!

I thought of you when this question came up. But I could not remember "Duetto"! Not wanting to sound too stupid, I didn't say anything hoping I would remember the name!

Bill <><

Ron Merrill · « **Reply #10 on:** June 30, 2006, 04:58:57 PM »

Thanks for the input. I just knew there had to be some good designs out there. Since i am not good at designing maybe i will run across a set of plans i can build from. I like the Ultimate design and have tried to convert some R/C designs but have not had a lot of luck doing that

so will keep looking. There are plenty of power plants i think to overcome the drag

. Many Thanks Ron.

Wynn Robins · « **Reply #11 on:** July 02, 2006, 11:19:23 PM »

Claus,

I have plans for the Boogie Woogie that you designed....how does/did that fly??

where can I get plans for the Duetto?

c.maikis · « **Reply #12 on:** July 03, 2006, 03:40:07 PM »

Hello Wynn,
to answer your questions:
The BoogieWoogie is a fun airplane. It was built to have a model in the Oldtime style a la "stick and tissue" look. It was powered by an Enya 45. This model can do all round manoeuvres very well, except for the Vertical Eight ( it needs more than 90 degrees !). Squares are VERY soft, Hourglass not possible if you want to recognize it!
The DUETTO is fully capable of the FAI schedule. If I would build it again, I would increase airfoil thickness from ( original ) 13% to at least 15% or even more.
You can have a full size plan, or a reduced 29 X 21 cm copy, and/or a copy of the original Aeromodeller article.
I'm not an expert at this forum business. I'll try to send you a private message and give you my Email address, and I need your post address. If that doesn't work please place a reply in this forum and we'll have to find another solution.
Regards, claus

Will Hinton · « **Reply #13 on:** July 16, 2006, 03:32:14 PM »

Hello Claus,
I'm afraid you may have started something here that will involve some time! meaning, of course, that several of us who have been playing with bipes would like copies of your plans. I'm more than willing to pay whatever to get them and maybe I can solve some of the "wiggle" problems I get in really sharp corners with my biplane designs from the '60's.
My email is wilhint@henry-net.com if you need it and I can then send you my post address.
Thanks much for your help to stunt!
Blessings,
Will Hinton

Andrew Raney · « **Reply #14 on:** August 08, 2006, 09:30:22 PM »

I modified a Sig Ultimate r/c profile for control line with an O.S. 65 4s, it flies a respectable pattern (for me), but you have to be ready to land when the engine quits. I also have an original design 40 profile bipe that does a great pattern but also is an earth seeking missile when the engine quits.
Andrew

Bob Zambelli · « **Reply #15 on:** August 09, 2006, 08:05:28 AM »

I'm flying my Staggerwing more and more and I believe that with a good pilot at the handle, it would be quite a capable competitor.

Although there are some minor trim issues, it seems to be a no-nonsense flyer. Just goes where it's pointed.

Due to the substantial wing spacing, I do not believe that drag is an issue.

Also, drag gets reduced considerably when I retract the gear.

It has a very low wing loading which helps.

Bob Z.

Bill Little · « **Reply #16 on:** August 09, 2006, 08:41:32 AM »

Hi Bob,

That is one great looking model!

I can't remember......... is that your design or the Jack Sheeks one?

Thanks
Bill <><

Bob Zambelli · « **Reply #17 on:** August 09, 2006, 09:24:56 AM »

Hi, Bill - it's an entirely original design, built around a SAITO .56.

It is actually quite close to scale.

Bob Z.

phil c · « **Reply #18 on:** September 22, 2022, 07:30:55 PM »

The main help and problem with a bipe is the second wing.
A former member of the Minneapolis Piston Poppers designed and flew a very presentable Gypsy Moth.
I forgot most of the details- it was a stick frame with 2 symmetrical wings(fairly close to scale) and about 40-48 inches on the top wing. A Rabe rudder, and WW I scale landing gear.

The main problems were with wind. It was obviously difficult to fly well the further above 10mph the wind went.

A more modern, sleek design should do better, especially if it is recognizably a scale of a full size plane.
With a lot of carbon fiber sticks to reduce weight and make is stronger a Well designed Bipe could probably make a very decent showing at a large contest or the NATS.

Scientifiction . · « **Reply #19 on:** September 22, 2022, 10:35:00 PM »

de H 60 G III Moth , essentialy the last Straight wing de H 60 , a derivative of the SWEPT WING de H 82 TIGER MOTH , This was so as the front cockpit in R A F service could be evacuated promptly , with a parachute .

Blatently OBVIOUS if you observe the INTERPLANE STRUTS .

These French STAMPE jobs were similar , but more manouvreable , with Ailerons on BOTH WINGS , both sides , too .

Scientifiction . · « **Reply #20 on:** September 22, 2022, 10:50:14 PM »

My Thinking is the DISPLACEMENT of the WING is a area of consideration .

Urtnowski speaks of this ocasionally , the VOLUME of air displaced . Like if you do a archimedes and get in the bath with it full to the top .
The Sounds of the screams are proportional to the volume displaced .

THEREFORE , if you got youre Joe average NOBLER or suchlike , and BIPLANERISED IT , a reasonable approach would seem to be the ' volume / displacement ' of BOTH wing should equal that of the standard wing ,
For A Start .

Thus , Std size , 1/2 as thick . Might work , Maybe well . ( as the GAP must / be proportional to the thickness % , or the disrupted flow , at least - Thinner less necesarry ? )

two at half the size & same thickness dost sound promising .a guess would be go up 20 5 in total area , with the ' new concept ' wing . as its working also as a ' CHANNEL ' to the airflow -
one would think a re writing of ' the book ' wouldnt hurt .

described as a moth Major here , Something to do with the gypsy III Engine .

Scientifiction . · « **Reply #21 on:** September 22, 2022, 11:02:35 PM »

Challenger III .

Even IF the DRAG is HIGH , if its reasonably constant , for the same weight loading , it'd mean the power loading ( wih the modern mega grunt Akro Motors , was more CONSISTANT . Less Varied . so could work better !.

Youd think a squased version of the full depth fuselage , would be the most practical , structurally . Strength to weight , wise . THOUGH these lite Carbon ( if the real stuff ) Tubes would negate that , Tho'd need streamlining - Like other struts .

NO Comment .[/img]

Scientifiction . · « **Reply #22 on:** September 22, 2022, 11:03:38 PM »

a bit of time on The Rack , in the Royal dungeons , should have it behaving more efficently .

DFW T28 Flea .

As a CONCEPT . i.e. drag the wings out 50 % , along with the Tail Moment . Some Photocopiers have X-Y Axis seperate for tall thin people or short fat people . Like wot theyve done ere ,

looks like he wasnt the only one barking up that tree .

not to mention Me Lohnar .

Back to the Flea , Actually , maybe youd wanna doit 200 - 100 9 Stretched 2x Wingspan & Fuse , same X sectioons ( Bar symetric airfoil ) .0

A lot of early ntique stuff didnt know wings had to be SHORT .

Therfor the same stretchy stretchy treatment on the CR3 dosnt seem to unresonable atall .

Scientifiction . · « **Reply #23 on:** September 22, 2022, 11:25:46 PM »

https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/wc-biplane-and-other-notable-airplanes/

https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/why-no-competitive-biplanes-in-stunt/msg253021/#msg253021

https://stunthanger.com/smf/stunt-design/almost-finished-with-it-my-stunt-biplane/

https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/old-topic-falco-bipe-plans/msg621146/#msg621146

As for lateral / gust stability , of the three twins , the one with the MOST Side area ( fuse & Nacelles ) is way better than the lesser in reasonable winds .

A Bi plane Hurricaneish for Basic One Vs two wings trials would be easyish , Yr Avg. orientalish wing , even . 48 x 8 in , Have hadem carry Two kilo - On ONE . No sweat , oon 70 Ft. .018 .not alot of sweat , anyway .

So if you have a annoying overweight aeroplane laying around , and a spare wing laying around , hop to-it . If theres a few bolts in it , back to back comparisons are at youre fingertips . !

PerttiMe · « **Reply #24 on:** September 23, 2022, 01:40:36 AM »

John Miller designed a stunt bipe many years ago.

Design and build etc: https://stunthanger.com/smf/stunt-design/almost-finished-with-it-my-stunt-biplane/50/
It flew: https://stunthanger.com/smf/open-forum/we-have-liftoff-the-2-bits-bipe-has-flown/
Plan posted at: https://stunthanger.com/smf/cad-users/show-casing-forum-members-cad-drawings/msg297152/#msg297152

Scientifiction . · « **Reply #25 on:** September 25, 2022, 07:04:00 PM »

very Flash .
------------

Cogitateing , ( The Cogs cliced over a few gears !

)
A PROFILE Schnieder ( Class ) Via Doc's " 38 Special " report , the fact you get a bit of wing , if the fuselage is FLAT , and yr four foot wood & 50 inch od span , sortta added up !

as were contemplating ( initially a twin winged ! Bi Plane ! on a 262 Profile Fuselage ! As its wide ( upward ) and Thin . ! ) One CLICKED a profile CR3 Curtis Fuselage 'd be about
The Same Shape ( more or less ) side on , and THIN , and give you extra wing ! Like those profile G b R1 things !

The bleedy great .60 / flat plate hoverey flyer thingo's ! THUS a Profile FP40 race / stunt / speed EVENT . for Schnider planes ! sort of . Profle Floats too . Cant find the pommy MC 72 Picture .

Obviousl not s fat as a full fuse one - and thus the wings are longer . !

https://www.circlemasters.com/building-contest-2017/october-21st-2017

Scientifiction . · « **Reply #26 on:** September 25, 2022, 07:07:59 PM »

Oh dear .

https://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=11732

https://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=4587

phil c · « **Reply #27 on:** December 20, 2022, 03:35:11 PM »

Kinda late and the mast, Pete

?? at the Minneapolis Piston Poppers built very meticulous models. He built, around 1968, that looked nearly exact scale, except for 12-15% thick wings with all carrying flap and maybe an extra inch or so in the nose.

I only saw it fly a few times, but Pete could turn in a very decent pattern with it. Heavy winds did affect it but not too much at lower 3-5fps speeds.

Phil Cartier
717-566-3810

philcartier@earthlink.net at you own risk.

Jim Svitko · « **Reply #28 on:** December 21, 2022, 10:37:31 AM »

Quote from: Robby Hunt on December 21, 2022, 05:59:40 AM

I will not claim to be an expert judge, but from what I saw on that video, that was a very nice flight. Any idea what the plane is, or who was flying it?

And, a nice flying site. Looked like near-perfect conditions.

Author Topic: Bi-Planes (Read 13667 times)

Walter Hicks

Eric Viglione