Balls . .
Seeing a Yatsenko looks pretty much like a modified Nobler ,
one wonders what wouldve happened had George built a few Magnums instead of a few Noblers.
I consider a decent engine run as important as loading, in the old days people though about 15 Oz a Sq Ft was
a better figure for wind. Certainly 10 / 11 Sq Ft will suffer bluster .
Still air that Macchi is the easiest thing ive flown an accurate pattern with, and it doesnt meet on standard criteria.
But then its an ' artists impression ' scale not dimensional .
Std propotions fly with std proportions aerodynamics .
The MB3 was dead scale , bar airfoil & 75 % cross sections , to the drawings I had . That in the wind
was a ' throttle stuck on a wet track ' type aeroplane. And Heavy . but would carve a smooth path through the
sky and goe where required, though it didnt feel responsive ( inertia). over 18 knots I generally down prop .
A 10 x 4 3 blade spun up hauls 70 + Oz planes , no problem.
for any experianced chap , its like being in 2nd gear on a twist gravel road in a rally car.
Try it in top and youre wasteing your time , or in the scenary .
To get a design to work across a broad range of conditions is ' the law of averages ' or a compromise.
Though having a high altitude , a low altitude and maybe a medium Alt,
with variations of ea for wind strengths might get more design variations,
it would hardly be practial.Unless you had a rich sponser, with no brains ?
What returns would he achieve ?
From what ive seen of ' current design trends ' They APPEAR to fly smoothly in rough air.
They dont bounce and pitch much, but get pushed ' off track ' very smoothly . I might add.
A more responsive plane can be held on a more accurate course, but can kick , buck , rock and bounce .
Might be flying CLOSER to the prescribed manouvre , but looks ' unprofessional ' to some.
Only real valuation would be via . electronic plotting of ACCURACY , if its a accurracy event ??
The Spit you flew had the Big Jim airfoil , though maybe a notch sharper le .Still to blunt in my books ,
IF it were a lightly loaded plane that was well back from approaching stall anywhere, the stall characteristics would be irrelevant.
A lot of considerations are more structural or C.G. related than ' shape ' , the only sane way to do a real light one
would be composites. BUT , it would still require ' stressed members ' for load paths , as the originals were not ' frameless shells ' .
Observeing the State Champs , id say anything semi elliptic will fly smoother in a bit of wind .
Over 18 Knots , Control Authority , Ridgidity , and HORSE POWER hanging in are the primary requisettes
And strong lines with no stretch .
Constant thrust over the Control Surfaces gives you Control Authority.
Had a ride in a Cessna 150 with a 40 hr pilot in a 20+ knot cross wind.
He had enough brains to keep the power well up till the wheels touched,
also my sugestion of surfing the wave lift on the mountain range was quickly discounted,
for some reason.
Fighting a huge tube / rotar in a 150 might not have worked !
Horses for courses.
Basically you need to start with a clean sheet , and unless youve spent years doing structural and dynamics anaylisis
youre intuitive instincts would need to be at a highly elevated state to achive a homogonous entity as a result .
Berringers thing won the World and Euro Champs , its a scale akro based contrivance ! Doesnt Work ?
Id still consider a Bristol Fighter with a symetrical airfoil @ about 64 in span would be a fine stunt ship below 5 Knot winds.With a big engine swinging a big four blade prop .The scale airfoil , not a c/l stunt monoplane one .
God moves in mysterious ways. Its a Bristol F2B .
Bristol wernt clowns , the put Chrysler 383s and
the like in their automobiles .
MB3 would stand comparison to that. , big words like Accomplished , and Aplomb .
Try seeing who does a clean intersection in the centre of the vertical eights if its blowing a bit ,
if you think that ' standard layouts ' stand comparison .