Nice looking design Matt. It has the it factor.

I think drawing stunt planes, well, let's make that just planes, is a fun and rewarding past time. You are following in a great modeling tradition.

There're some items to keep in mind when designing. Learn them early, and most of your designs will fly decently, with some flying brilliantly.

Gear placement and design will help you get high points for take offs and landings.

Learning about lift and drag will help you design wings and structures that make the best use of the power available.

Moments give you the power in the control system to control the beast.

Control system geometry work hand in hand with the moments.

If you can find a copy of Simmons Model Aircraft Aerodynamics, ISB 1-85486-121-2, it will help you learn a lot about the whys and wherefores of desining model aircraft.

Keep up the great work Matt, You remind me and many others of ourselves , "back in the day".

I don't go thru and make full drawings but I do a lot of freehand sketchs on grid paper.  You like the clasics - kewl!  Personally I do not like classics, so I gave myself an "assignment" to try to design a classic shape that I liked: started with a basic classic shape, changed this and that, added or took away something else Then while building I got a couple other ideas and added them in - all ended up being the Mythbuster you saw in PA.  Want to go back and build something more like the original sketch some day...

For the excercise: try designing in other generes; jets, modern, upright engine, 'lectric (gasp!) anything that forces you to look at different aesthetics and get familiar with them.

I like looking at what's been published.  Example: Dave Gierke's Novi, Novi 3 and All American Eagle all have a lot of similar design elements in them.  I saw all 3 of the originals when Dave was campaigning them.  For me the Novi 3 absolutely blows the others away.  That's odd because the AAE is very similar to the N3.  Principle difference is in the canopy and the tail cone - but AAE seems to lose something.  Thus, sometimes I do my interpretation of other peoples designs; pick and choose among features I like, and try re-combining them - I use this exercise as a thought starter.  Dave did something else I like; for Novi 4 he broke with all the predecessors - the only piece he kept was the cowl - cuz he had a fiberglass mold!  Yet the N4 still has Daves "personailty" in it, and the N4 strongly influenced countless designs since.

Was looking at the Sting Ray article last nite.  I like everything about it except the wing tips  - I would have to reverse the tips if I built one - but then it would not be a Sting Ray anymore!  OK if its not truly a Sting Ray then what OTHER changes would I make; get out the sketchpad.  We built several birds that used Mirage 3 airfoils, but NONE of ours had those gawd-awfull wingtips.  Speaking of wnigtips, don't get me started on Airon, Apteriyx, Avanti, Barracuda, Cardinal, LaDonna, USA-1, etc.  I have a Cardinal kit, the only reason I might build it is to FIX THOSE DARNED WINGTIPS!!!  Acutally if I built it I would reverse all the tips and the fin thus improving the aesthetics by maybe 1000% - and call it "LANIDRAC" 

Try sketching features: cowls with scoops (!!!) or without, cheek cowls, radial cowls, upright with speed bonnet, different wing shapes, different wing tips (did I mention I HATE swept forward tips?), different canopies, and all kind of different fins Fins FINS!!!! Oh yeah, don't forget V-tails, droop tails, high tails, low tails, twin tails, stinger tails - you get the idea.

For a real challenge try taking stunt "numbers" and try designing semi-scale around them.  It really compells you interpret the personality of the the prototype, and translate it into CLPA-friendly package...

All you need lots of paper, PENCILS, and a big eraser.

What's in a name?  All I can say is that it will come to you.  I have started some sketches based on a possible name.  For example, I took the word "Extreme" and started sketching an extreme stunter.  Along the way it became the "No Prisoners" I could show you the sketches - but then I'd have to shoot you... 
 

Ditto what John said.  Take some CAD classes.  When you get to the point of creating a design you will be able to edit easier and add/subtract features you like.  Also a handy way to store "stunt numbers" as a starting point to keep you from going too far off the cliff.  Any decent CAD class will also be in a 3D solid model format - making it really easy to rotate your new design around and see it from different angles.  As John will tell you tho, 2D is still more effective at making model parts drawings.

While you are at it, see it you can get some basic Art classes to improve your skills in sketching and perspective.  We are all "wired" to see things differently.  For me the sketchpad is a good starter for visualizing things.

Design it in CAD, create laser cutter files and send it off to one of the Laser Cutters to make a "kit"!

Dennis, I guess these are the tips you like.  These are the ones I favor too!

Edit:  I love the looks of this plane also, Windy designs some really good looking ships.

That's the idea Matt. I can see the influences that are affecting you. Later, you'll look at these sketches, and be inspired to modify them more.

They look good, I prefer a little more of a slender fuse, but then I don't run a pipe. I do use a rear exhaust engine with a muffler.

Here's a project I'm involved in right now, to illustrate the process a bit.

The first iteration looked lean and mean in the concept stages.

Once I started working on it, I had to apply some aerodynamic rules. The design started to look "portly" to me. Here's where taking those art courses Denny mentioned comes to bear fruit.

It's getting there, and I believe the finished project will have much of the visual impact that the concept drawing does.

The first drawing is the concept drawing, the second is after applying some of the rules, then I realised that I needed more seperation between the wings.

Of course, mine are done on the computer, but what you are doing on paper is every bit as good.

As soon as I can convert my latest on this plane, I'll post where it's gotten to at present. This is not to compare our work, but rather to illustrate some of the design exercises one can go through.

Edit, I've conveted a couple of the drawings to jpegs.

The third one shows the portly, porky looking version when I increased the wing seperation. I felt that the fuselage had to also expand vertically, as the top wing being so much higher didn't look right.

The latest ,or last pic shows me trying to get the "look' back by changing perceptions. This is where that art training can help Matt.

So far, all I've done is changed the size of the spinner. This fools the eye, and makes the fuselage appear to be more in line with the concept sketch.

I'm considering making the fuselage wider so the design has balance, and appears more in proportion to the rest of the design.

These are the advantages of making sketches as you are doing. It gives you a direction, and a visual goal to shoot for.

Keep it up Matt. I think you may have a future in the best non-paying sport out there.

"Porkiness" is in the eyes of the beholder.  If you were to look at the Sharke that Orestes flies you would not a lot of curves and a lot of cross sectional area.  It would look "porky" in a side view, but does not come across that way in 3D.

Look to full scale.  Cheek cowls are used to cover the cylinders on horizontally opposed engines,  The lower chin is usually only a carb air intake.  On a Formula 1 racer fuselages are rather small, the X-sections are defined by what is required to keep the pilot covered.  some combination of the pilot sitting high relative to the engine (Bill Falck's Rivets) or low relave to the engine (Cassutt) dictate whether the fuselage is more rounded on the top or the bottom.  These provide styling cues we can use to generate a pleasing shape.

Oh yeah, try DOUBLING the glass area (height) of your canopy; it will drive you to examine different shapes...

As A guy that does it the old fashion way (you know, drafting board, curves, squares, etc.) I love it. While I can use the basics of a CAD program, it's just not the same, for me anyway, as drawing and looking at what you have full sized. Just a quirk, I guess.

Ok Dennis, more experimenting today with shapes

Matt, I took the liberty to trace your last drawing into my CAD program. I then changed a few items to show how you can easily play with shapes.

This will change the perception, scale, and overall feel of the design.

The total time is about 1/2 an hour.

The top outline is your original, the second has the cockpit doubled in size as Dennis suggested. It really changes the looks doesn't it? The bottom outline I changed the shape of the stab and rudder.

3 concepts, all based on the same design. Easily modified, and stored.

This is one of the reasons for becoming CAD proficient. Also, the files can be used to have a laser cutter make the parts for you.

Matt, I would encourage you to continue as you are for a while, but save your sketches. You're taking an art class next year, and try to take some mechanicalo drawing so you learn the basics. If your school offers mechanical drawing, they likely will have a course taching you on CAD, but you'll have to have the hand version of mechanical drawing first.

Once you've done the above, you'll be better able to determine which CAD system will be best for you.

I tried to get some of the basics out on the CAD forum on Stuka, but, it just took tooo much time to continue, and I was trying to teach a generic form that could be used with a little learning curve, in almost any CAD system.

Delta CAD is an inexpensive program, less than $50 that you can download. They have a 30 day free version so you can play with it. It's an easy to use, intuitive program.

Turbo CAD is one of the best, inexpensive, programs available. They used to have a free version of a basic 2D system that you can download.

The problem with self teaching oneself, is, like practising the staunt pattern without a coach, you get so you do your mistakes perfectly. Because of that, I recommend that one take a basic course at least. Cad is often offered in evening classes.

I think CAD is a tremendous tool. I'd probably use that if I could afford a 36" x 50" plasma screen (and the hardware to drive it) so I could look at a plane full sized. I'd use CAD more (and not doubt get a lot better at it) if I could a bigger display.

One of the advantages for Real World Drafters™ is the tactile sensation.  You have to be able to see what want before you draw it. Being able to picture the plane in your head before you put it on paper is the key. But it would be awfully nice to have stored section images and be about to easily change something like deciding, after the plane is drawn, that you would really like to lower the wing CL an 1/8" or change the rib layout.

Well I spent today fooling around with one plane, the one I liked the most from my original concept sketches, and fooled around with canopy height and rudder shape, and here is what I came up with:

The first one is the original
The second one I experimented with rudder shape
The third one I changed the canopy and the rudder
The fourth one I went back to the original canopy and the rudder from the third one.

What'ca think?

Edit: the third pic is the second iteration, the fourth one is the third concept, and the second one is the last drawing, if followed on what I said above.

A couple changes and it looks like a completely different design, wow

Bruce, I'm not into rap, so  that doesn't help me, not that I'm building the plane anyways .  Thanks for the comments on my drawings.  I did come up with a couple jet styled concept drawings, one that I really like.  I've seen on Windy's website pipes that he makes with 2 exhaust holes, well I used that and came up with a jet design with 2 exhaust holes, and a piece of wood dividing the cowl into two areas.  maybe I should post them, show you what I've been doing.

Mercury sounds good to me. Might use that myself on one!

Robert

Matt, keep up the effort.

I have to ditto on the usefulness of CAD.  It makes it so easy to change things.  Rescaling is one of the best tools.  I hardly ever build anything now without a CAD drawing first.  Another benefit is that you can correct a lot of mistakes that get expensive when cutting material.

I also have to ditto the suggestion of TurboCAD.  If I was starting now it would be my choice.  The learning curve is the tedious part.  I found that the easiest way to learn the use of a program is to try to make an actual drawing.  The tutorials are fine, but until you try to actually do something I find you don't really remember how to.

In case any of you are wondering if I'm still sketching out possible future stunters, here is my newest one.  This is my first attempt at scanning the image, and I was successful!!!

I have noticed in other sketches I have done, that Windy's airplanes are really playing an influence on me, and they all, except this one, contain some of Windy's asthetics in them...

  I would note that the Testarossa and the Novanta are quite a recent departure for Windy as far as the asthetics go. When I think of Windy airplanes, the Cardinal/Strega/Tsunami are the overall basic design approach.

   Then there's the Sweeper/MIG...

    Brett

Hi Brett

I do see what you are saying, I basically meant the last 3 PA planes he's built (Testarossa, Novanta, and Tribute) have had a lot of influence in the way I sketch out stunt ships.  His semi-scale planes are still, extremely impressive, the way they are finished and how scale they look.

I heard he built an F-16, anybody got pics of that?

    The first two are the "new" way and of course the Tribute is a Cardinal ("Tribute" to Big Jim) and the classic styling. You might note a passing resemblance of the Testrarossa and Novanta to this one:

Tribute is actually a tribute to his pet bird, Chickie.  Maybe it also does have something to do with Big Jim as well.

I sure can tell resemblance to the Trivial Pursuit to the Novanta.

Here's a project I'm involved in right now, to illustrate the process a bit.

Hey John: 
I can see the silloette of a Stalker RE in the Bipe. 
What is engine size , span, and area on this project ?

Matt,

The very first sketch looks very much like a Cavalier, which came to life using aerodynamics by Charles Mackey.
Don't you need to be painting?  Do you have your shop set up with humidity controls??

Jim Pollock   

The big job now is trimming.  Read Brett and Ted's trimming articles and the you need to do advanced trimming.
Advanced trimming is nothing more than trying a huge number of props, ensuring that the tip weight doesn't cause
hinging, and there is no hidden sources of yawing.  Go get um!

Jim Pollock 

Very nice thread. I truly enjoy looking at the noodling going on for CL stunter designs.

As for CAD, it definitely is nice. I personally use AutoCAD, an older version that I inherited from
work just before retirement. However, if you take a CAD class or two at most colleges, you can get
a current "student" version of such programs for a low price. They basically do everything that the
real program does, except the outputs are "crippled" in some manner, say a watermark in the printed
outputs.. And you can find some versions of very strong CAD programs which are fully usable or close
to it, reasonably priced (say ~$150) and are good for a year or maybe longer. Pretty well worthwhile
if you are seriously wanting to learn.

I'm only now trying to learn some 3D stuff, using a borrowed program from a client I consult for. It's
an awesome experience, I figure I'm at about 11% of competency with it. What I'm looking for is the
ability to loft and design shapes like cowls, wing tips, and wheel pants.

In the meantime, I'm just getting around to making some simpler assemblies, but it's very useful for
verifying fits on 2D parts. I can't tell you how longit takes an old dog like me to learn the 3D paradigm.
Below is a sample of a beginning to a verify drawing for my Mo'Beast "modular" laser cut wing assembly.

Also, I suggest you get familiar with splines in 2D CAD as soon as you can. Everything nowadays is
modeled with splines (and ball bearings, as Fletch pointed out to us).

Here's a spline sample, on my fantasy "Stealth Stunter" fuselage "design" (which currently violates 3D
topology..).

Anyway, it's all for fun, and fun is what I seek.

L.

"To observations which ourselves we make, we grow more partial for th' observer's sake." -Alexander Pope

Here's what I mean by Windy is playing an influence on the way I sketch out airplanes:

In the new sketch, the paper was a little wrinkled when I scanned it, so some of the lines are straight...

Call up Randy Smith and order a bunch of Steve Buso drawings. Talk about gorgeous lines!!!

Yeah, we got a couple of Steve Buso's drawing, the Jaguar and the Lite Wave.  The Jaguar is simply GORGEOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have you seen his Freddy Kruger, Friday the 15th design? Bloody awesome.

Here's another new sketch that I don't think looks half bad.  The numbers are Oriental Plus numbers with a little longer nose, and larger stab and elevator.

Hey Matt, great talent, great future with all the best teachers! I remember that you should always try to make your next plane better than the last, Put improvements in each step and don't try to do it all at once. The box-0-stuff went out Friday and I put notes on the back of the pictures. A couple of vcr tapes with me and mike's hero-Vic "THE JET" Macaluco. Its all fun. Don't let your trailing edge sag, the girls won't like it!-----Louie