Tightest Cornering Classic Design?

I'm not nearly as experienced as most of you folk - built a few Noblers, Magicians, Ringmasters, and a fully equipped foamed ST46 Scorpio (lots and lots of combat planes, though). However, the tightest cornering, nailed-on-rails plane I ever had was George Aldrich's Peacemaker. It was the full-fuselage, molded type by Top Flite. I used an old Enya 29 (still have the engine) - with airfoil shaped exhaust and airfoil shaped head fins, and a Champion glow plug.

At the time ('73-74), the Scorpio was touted as the tightest cornering, but nothing I ever had compared to the little Peacemaker. Noblers were close - if you got the weight just right. (You had to crash and repair one a few times to improve the flight characteristics.)

Which of the classic designs corner and groove best?

The ones you build straight, trim well, use a good power plant and fly well.

>The ones you build straight, trim well, use a good power
>plant and fly well.
>
>Ion

That was helpful.

>>The ones you build straight, trim well, use a good power
>>plant and fly well.
>>
>>Ion
>
>That was helpful.

I think it was, zilla.

There are not THAT many diferences between diferent clasical designs, but there are BIG diferences between, for instance, a crooked. heavy, with a lousy engine and out of trim NOBLER and a straight, light (i mean proper weight), with a good power train and well trimmed one.

Hence, I DO think my remark was helpful, which is more than I can say about yours...

LAST EDITED ON Nov-01-04 AT 04:11 PM (CDT)
 
>>>The ones you build straight, trim well, use a good power
>>>plant and fly well.
>>>
>>>Ion
>>
>>That was helpful.
>
>I think it was, zilla.
>
>There are not THAT many diferences between diferent clasical
>designs, but there are BIG diferences between, for instance,
> a crooked. heavy, with a lousy engine and out of trim
>NOBLER and a straight, light (i mean proper weight), with a
>good power train and well trimmed one.
>
>Hence, I DO think my remark was helpful, which is more than
>I can say about yours...
>
>Ion

Actually, I kind of agree with Zilla. There are many differences:

* Wing construction - D-tube, I-Beam, Sheeted, Foam, etc.,etc.
* Nose and Tail Moments
* Wing and tail positions vs. engine thrust
* Wing area, flap area, and tail area, elevator vs. stab, flap area vs. wing, and all sorts of ratios inbetween
* Aspect ratios
* Thrust vs. weight,

and there's a whole host of other details that might affect cornering.

My question didn't ask, "Does a well-trimmed, well-balanced aircraft, and a good pilot turn tighter than one that's not?" Rather, the subject line specified "Design." That implies that if all other factors are equal, is there a specific design that performs better at cornering?

To go a little further, I was always told that a longer tail moment gave tighter corners. However, recent reports of the very-light Nobler ARF seem to indicate that the flaps over-control and give the plane a "swoopy" (Brett's quote I believe) feel, and differential control ratios were recommended to give the elevator more throw. In my own experience, there was a definite tendency for the Nobler to fly better with more weight - as repairs built up. My first ones were covered with Monokote (new stuff at the time), so they may have been overly light. Also, I wonder if my Peacemaker cornered so well because the flaps were split, and somewhat small compared to the tail.

I'm also curious about wing construction. It was stated recently that some "braking" was needed for very tight corners. Because of that, I wonder if the flexible construction of an I-beam wing is just enough to cause compression in a corner, losing enough lift to make the corner appear tighter.

It seems to me that foam wings bounce more, and do not absorb minor turbulence as well as an open framework. I can even see the difference some times. Stiffness for stiffness' sake may not be the right goal.

Just points for a discussion in an effort to learn ...

Tom, cornering is NOT an insulaated characteristic.

If your model is slow on corners and you brign the CG a little back it will become mre agile, but you have to be careful not to loose tracking.

The long tail moment won't make the corners sharper, but the plane will fly through them better. A combat wing can turn on a dime and give you 9 cents change, but it's ot good for stunt.

If all you want is sharp corners regardless of other flight characteristics, get a combat wing.

If you can get out of a wingover into inverted half lap without making any corrections you'll see that the shaprpness of the corner is not as important as doing the maneuvers without the ship "bobling", doing the figures in the right shape kepping the bottoms at 5' and doing the inetrsections at the same place.

That is really hard to do, and you dont need a tight turning ship for that.

As I said, you'll need a straight, well powered and trimmed stunter.

According to Big Art the Veco Chief does the "best" corners, but whether or not that means tightest I couldn't say. My Veco Chief turns very well, but then so does my Shauer Gladiator in the .45 size (high aspect ratio)

>According to Big Art the Veco Chief does the "best" corners,
>but whether or not that means tightest I couldn't say. My
>Veco Chief turns very well, but then so does my Shauer
>Gladiator in the .45 size (high aspect ratio)

Once Big Art has spoken, there is no need for further chatter. My Chief is on order.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-01-04 AT 07:48 PM (CDT)
 
How 'bout Wild Bill Netzeband's '66 Humbug?

>How 'bout Wild Bill Netzeband's '66 Humbug?

Real good choice. No flaps; big, high aspect ratio tail which produces lots of lift with small deflections and little drag. Very, very quick. Had to fly real briskly to be good ... but when it was quick, (and flown by Bob Baron) it was very, very good.

Well,

I probably shouldn't say this because someone will tell me to prove it, but without a doubt I think that my Akromaster if kept at 42-43 ounces would keep up with a Humbug in cornering ability. If you think it can't, it's a Gieseke nobler with a greatly enlarged stab/elevator made to look like a Spinks Akromaster. Boy would it corner!

Flite Streak.

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"If thine enemy offend thee, give his child a drum." (Chinese Curse)

Tom:

It may not be great for the rest of the pattern but for sheer tight and SLOW corners, I don't think anything will touch a lightly built Netzeband Fierce Arrow. Many years back (late 50's or very early 60's) I saw a tissue and clear finished Fierce Arrow SLOWLY doing square vertical eights in dead calm air. Not just singles but one from 4' to 45 deg., one 45 to overhead, one overhead down to 45 and on from there to level, then back over the same way---8-eights to the starting point. We didn't think of lap times much then but I remember it was incredibly slow compared to the Noblers we all flew. A good guess might be 7 second lap time equivelant. Anyway, any faster and you'd never keep up.

IF I remember right, they were done full inside square from level plus 2 more inside turns to inverted then full outside plus 2 more turns and so forth over the top to level THEN going right back over the same way. I called it a "stepladder" at the time but stacked 8's might be more apt.

Can anyone else remember seeing this or who did it? After nearly half a century I could be wrong on the details. At the time, though, I did draw a sketch of what and how so I know the basics are right.

I asked Bill Netzeband about it at VSC last year and it didn't ring a bell with him. Anybody else?

Well,

I'm probably going to get my "you know what" kicked again but...

I think Ion's input had a lot more going for it than he was given credit for. I don't think he deserved the put-down he got for saying so.

Tightest turning is, unfortunately, an incomplete mission statement. The rate at which an airplane will simply "turn" or change in the pitch axis is more a function of trim than it is of design. Don't take this to extremes, we're talking "stunt" airplanes here, not a Stuntwagon compared to a Hell Razor.

As the static margin (the distance between the CG and the Aerodynamic center of the vehicle) decreases the resistance to changes in pitch decreases as well. Thus, if you keep moving the CG back pretty much all of them will turn much tighter than the pilot can control with precision. Ergo, the simple answer to the basic question is that all of them can turn tighter than you can fly them so, what's to choose between one and the other.

As Ion suggest, this ultimate rate of pitch change question is largely one of trim rather than design.

By the way, TomB's later statement about the Peacemaker design was a valid observation, especially his comment about the half span flaps. The Aerodymamic Center of a flapped ship will always be aft of that of an unflapped ship (because of the drag and negative pitching moment produced by the flaps). Ships with smaller flaps (especially spanwise)will have an AC somewhere between that of an unflapped ship and a full flapped one.

As a result, as TomB noted, the half span flapped Peacemaker pitches more aggressively with the CG at a given location than a full flapped ship for the simple reason that the CG is aerodynamically closer to the AC. The static margin is smaller therefore the pitch response is more aggressive.

Now, if you want to talk about "quality" of turn and the pilot's ability to control that rate predictably so as to impress judges, you can then start talking about design.

This question, by the way, turned out to be TomB's ultimate request, i.e. "Which of the classic designs corner and groove best?" not the tightest which was, as I stated earlier, not a worthwhile question for a stunter since they can all be "trimmed" to turn faster than we can control ... as Ion implied.

Without restating a lot of the verbiage we've covered in other threads regarding tail volume and aft CGs, look for classic designs that have large tails and comparitively small flaps (for these light weight designs). Also contemplate the advisability of designs which encourage less flap travel than elevator to reduce the negative pitching moment from flap deflection. Many of the ships of that era had more flap area than necessary because the ships were so light they couldn't really take advantage of the increase in lift the flaps produced ... especially if deflected one to one with the elevators ... and even more especially if the tail is small in comparison to the size of the wing.

The Chief, as Big Art is said to have stated, is a very good era design. It has a good airfoil without too sharp a leading edge. It has comparatively small flaps which are intended to be deflected less than the elevators and the tail is quite large in comparison to the wing area.

Thus, the airplane can be trimmed so that the lift developed in a corner is close to that required .. not a lot more, or any less ... the tail is large enough to to produce a reaonably aft Aerodynamic Center of the vehicle and will thus accept a fairly aft CG which keeps the Center of Gravity in the general vicinity of the Center of lift of the wing which reduces the pitching moment between where the weight is concentrated and where the lift is produced by the wing.

All really good stuff.

Other designs of the era, a lot of the published I-beamers for instance, tended to have large flaps and small tails. These produced airplanes that were much more sensitive to CG changes and the fuel burned out during a flight could change the CG enough make a ship which was kind of blah in corners at the start of a flight metamorph into one which is really touchy by the end of the flight just because you burned 4 oz of gas out of the nose. Careful attention to flap deflection becomes much more critical to make such a design a happy one throughout a flight.

So, I vote not to drum Ion out of the club. While his input might have seemed a little abrupt, it wasn't altogether out of line.

Trim is way, way, way more important amongst remotely competent designs than is the design itself ... if you want to win contests with them. If all you want to do is turn "tight" just move the CG aft until you lose control and then move it back forward a bit after you glue the pieces back together.

Ted

p.s. Larry's probably right.

At least you tried, Ted. Cornering was the major topic of stunter performance for most of the time I remember during the 60's and 70's.

I've flown plenty of combat planes - a lot - and yes, cornering is much tighter than a stunter. However, try to take one through the hard corner of reverse wingover, and see if really rotates on the cables, and whether you can keep the bobble out. Lots of luck.

>.

>Trim is way, way, way more important amongst remotely
>competent designs than is the design itself ... >
>

Thanks Ted
That clears up 25 yrs of bad information I have living with....regards David

"The Aerodymamic Center of a flapped ship will always be aft of that of an unflapped ship (because of the drag and negative pitching moment produced by the flaps). "

Do you mean center of pressure, rather than aerodynamic center?

"the lift developed in a corner is close to that required"

Huh?

That is so cool. I was fortunate to see Wild Bill's in the old days, but don't remember that incident. I gotta build a Fierce Arrow someday.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-02-04 AT 04:53 PM (CDT)
 
Tom, Looks like you got some good information about cornering/grooving etc. I am assuming you want a classic plane that basically flies the best for cometition.
I don't compete, but I do like a plane that performes the best I can make it.
My way of choosing a design to build is to look at the contest results in Stunt News. Not only will it give you a good idea about which planes do the best, but also the engine that helped it do so.It also tells you what the top flyers choose to do battle with. It also will tell you what beginners, intermediate , advance, and expert flyers use so you can build a plane to your level.
The only thing you have to do is grade on a curve (like who the pilot is). Ted can make an out of trimmed or poorly designed plane perform better than I could.
I'm sure you will notice a pattern as to which designs are the best.
If I were going to learn and practice the pattern, my choice based on beginner used designs would be an Oriental or Magician, based on my experience, flying both and others. Twister, Banchee, Chief, T-Bird, Smoothie. Good luck and check those results as far back in Stunt News
as you can, the design of choice becomes evident.
Good luck and have fun on your search for the right one.
Jerry

Jerry,

Those are some good planes, but I don't believe the (SIG) Banshee is Classic legal, and I know the Twister isn't.

>Those are some good planes, but I don't believe the (SIG)
>Banshee is Classic legal, and I know the Twister isn't.

I've built and flown both Banshee and the Twister. I would not rate either one of them "good turning". They're like a modern version of the Scientific hollow logs ------- almost anybody can assemble one and get it to fly.

Souredough and ama, Tom didn't say anything about competeing and if you read the last part of Ted's reply, he agrees it's the trimming that makes the tight corner. Why not take a Twister, modify it to Teds designe and learn how to trim it to make the tightest turn possibe. Then pick a plane that is legal for classic competition and apply what you have learned about trimming to it. Just a suggestion for one way to get to his objective.
Jerry

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought that the original question was: "What was the Tightest Turning Classic design?" In the light of that, I stand by my original post to this thread.

Apologiae tecum!

This doesn't answer your question, but the tightest turn I've seen a stunt plane appear to make was done by Paul Walker's "For Reals". This is an old Impact that he thought was ugly, so he recovered it with some plastic jive. I guess that made it really light. He came down in a wingover. I'm sure he did not begin to turn the airplane until it reached five feet. It then assumed level flight at five feet. I know that's impossible, but the illusion was perfect.

Hmmm...Well, sticking to your original criteria Best Corner and Groove, I'd say I'm leaning towards Ion and Ted's advice.

If you want some observations from a not-so-expert but pragmatic flyer, I have a few. Most classic designs were built around a 6 1/2 ounce engine with NO MUFFLER, and even at that, designs like the Cavalier have a longish nose & used a Fox35 WITH a shaft extension. So, what worked very well for John Simpson in the 60's may not work for you if you don't follow his lead. Put a 9 1/2 ounce ST46 or and 8.5 Ounce OS FP, add a 2 Ounce tube muffler, it's gonna need a bunch of tail weight and not fly like the original. To this day, John uses a shaft extension in his Cavalier's, and works to keep the nose weight down even with the Aerotiger 36.

That being said, there are a ton to choose from. My personal favorites would make my votes for the Geseke Nobler, hard to beat for a serious classic stunter with great turn and groove. A Chizler, also if built light with a light power package. And lastly, depsite the smallish appearing tail volume, a Warburton Tony has a very nice presentation in the corners, and grooves like it's on rails. I've broken my own rules, and put the weighty ST46 in my Tony, it has a good size thick wing that will carry the extra tail weight to compensate, and it still is an amazing flying airplane, plus it just looks so cool.

Well, that's my .02 , whatever you pick, have fun and trim it until it fly's the way you like.

Hi Eric,
The Warburton Tony was one of my favorite planes. Built one back in '71. Still have it, but it isn't "flyable" anymore.
Powered mine with a Veco 35.
Bill <><

Has anyone mentioned the USA-1??
Doesn't get any better. Mine was solid as a rock and turned on a dime giving back .09999 change.
Of course, they all do have to be trimmed correctly.

Bill <><

The best cornering plane I have ever flown is the Novi IV that Dave Gierke designed. Followed closely by the Novi III. I don't even start to know why, but those two planes really turn and seem to not overshoot when I practice a little.

Bigiron

Hi Bigiron,
How do you compare the Novi I to either of them?
Thanks!
Bill <><

Personally, I think a good light Barnstormer or Humongus could do a smaller corner than most other Classic legal airplanes. Remember that OTS model are Classic legal... Steve

The Novi I falls to fifth place behind my T Bird (old upright engine) and Nobler.
It probably isn't a good comparison though as I think that something was mis-aligned on my Novi I.

Bigiron

> The best cornering plane I have ever flown is the Novi IV
>that Dave Gierke designed. Followed closely by the Novi
>III. I don't even start to know why, but those two planes
>really turn and seem to not overshoot when I practice a
>little.
>
> Bigiron

Do you really practice? DOC

NO!

MY first ship that cornered like it was just changing directions ( yes I know, not what we want), was a Dolphin. It had a noisy Fox 36 (no muffler) on it and was simply a joy to fly. That " illusion" of simple changing directions was built into this airplane. However the last time I saw it change dirctions was when the bellcrank let go about 10 ft off the ground inverted. Hasn't been the same since.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-06-04 AT 02:58 PM (CDT)
 
(First picture) My Classic Airforce. Southwick "Lark", Mathis "Chizler", Werwage "Vulcan", Gaildini "Olympic Mk. IV.

(Second picture) IMHO..... The Winner

>(First picture) My Classic Airforce. Southwick "Lark",
>Mathis "Chizler", Werwage "Vulcan", Gaildini "Olympic Mk.
>IV.
>
>(Second picture) IMHO..... The Winner

The Olympic Mk IV! Thank you, thank you! You put a bunch of classic designs together, and told me which one corners best. You compared an elliptical (Lark), classic Nobler areas and moments (Chizler),and even an I-Beam (Vulcan). They were all classics, and usually Fox 35 powered.

I will work on purchasing and building an Olympic kit from Brodak.

My brain hurts from the other posts, and I shouldn't have tried to comment on Phil's CG question (see other thread), either - more theory and pretend conclusions from frustrated aerodynamicists. I just want to have fun.

>>(First picture) My Classic Airforce. Southwick "Lark",
>>Mathis "Chizler", Werwage "Vulcan", Gaildini "Olympic Mk.
>>IV.
>>
>>(Second picture) IMHO..... The Winner
>
>The Olympic Mk IV! Thank you, thank you! You put a bunch
>of classic designs together, and told me which one corners
>best.

ARRRGH!!!!!! (again).

Brett

LAST EDITED ON Nov-06-04 AT 06:20 PM (CDT)
 
>>>(First picture) My Classic Airforce. Southwick "Lark",
>>>Mathis "Chizler", Werwage "Vulcan", Gaildini "Olympic Mk.
>>>IV.
>>>
>>>(Second picture) IMHO..... The Winner
>>
>>The Olympic Mk IV! Thank you, thank you! You put a bunch
>>of classic designs together, and told me which one corners
>>best.
>
> ARRRGH!!!!!! (again).
>
> Brett

Well, maybe it's just not your generation. I guess these days it might be like asking, "which stereo system has the best frequency response?" That's a useless question now. 20-20K audio band frequency response was solved long ago. Now it's S/N ratio, the nuanced transient response, or subwoofers that are tight without distortion, etc., etc. In that regime, the stereo with the "best trim" might "corner" best.

For the stunt planes of the 50's, 60's and 70's, though, it was all about cornering. My question was just trying to find out from the people who have flown them all. Perhaps I should have asked, "which classic plane best reproduces the feeling of swinging a long pole with a vane nailed to the end that rotates at your command?"

It's not a distraction. I spent more than a few years helping an individual you've mentioned before. Those particular stunt designs might turn in the space of the proverbial barn door, but most of the time it took more room than that. Yet, many people judged it as competitive. A controllable throttle was meant to power through what was still a very wide turn. Just a different style, I guess.

It was a legitimate question.

>> ARRRGH!!!!!! (again).
>>
>> Brett
>
>Well, maybe it's just not your generation. I guess these
>days it might be like asking, "which stereo system has the
>best frequency response?" That's a useless question now.
>20-20K audio band frequency response was solved long ago.
>Now it's S/N ratio, the nuanced transient response, or
>subwoofers that are tight without distortion, etc., etc. In
>that regime, the stereo with the "best trim" might "corner"
>best.

Actually, it's which has the best overall performance when driving the highly reactive speaker loads.

>For the stunt planes of the 50's, 60's and 70's, though, it
>was all about cornering. My question was just trying to
>find out from the people who have flown them all. Perhaps I
>should have asked, "which classic plane best reproduces the
>feeling of swinging a long pole with a vane nailed to the
>end that rotates at your command?"
>
>It's not a distraction. I spent more than a few years
>helping an individual you've mentioned before. Those
>particular stunt designs might turn in the space of the
>proverbial barn door, but most of the time it took more room
>than that. Yet, many people judged it as competitive. A
>controllable throttle was meant to power through what was
>still a very wide turn. Just a different style, I guess.
>
>It was a legitimate question.

Well, maybe, maybe not. Putting aside the fact that "how tight does it corner" is not now nor never has been much of a limitation from the airplane side, nor is it now nor has it ever been a significant determing factor in competition success, it's not *designs* that corner, it's actual airplanes. Ion and Ted had it the rightest - it's not which design it is, it's how it's set up, and particularly, how it's trimmed and powered. Airplanes that would be barely competitive in 1985 with ST46s are NATs winners with TP engines, and the primary difference is turn capability. Or do you imagine that the startlingly good performance of Billy and Bob Hunt's classic planes is the result of the aerodynamics??!!!! Not a chance - the aerodynamics are negligibly different from any one of hundreds of airplanes from the classic era. But they know how to trim, and far more importantly, the *engine/prop setup* provides enough speed control in the corners to allow far tighter cornering than it would with, say, a Fox.

Even more to the point, two of the models Phil shows above are Noblers with disguises - the Chizler and Olympic are quite literally Nobler mods, and are noted as such by their designers. And the Detroit I-beam designs are also heavily based on the Nobler (as noted the extensive I-beam articles in FM and SN). So you are jumping to a conclusion to think that because one particular example of one particular design (and Phil is of course, right, his Olympic flies much better overall than the others, and it's easily visible from the outside) that this tells you that the Olympic is a "tighter-cornering design". They're essentially all the same from any reasonable technical standpoint.

You didn't even ask what engine it used, versus, say, the Lark. That makes a lot more difference than the aerodynamics. If I recall correctly, the Olympic uses an Aero-Tiger 36, and the Lark uses a McCoy 40! They both run nicely, but the corner performance would be expected to be much, much better in any airplane with the AeroTiger. You could put it in a much "worse" design and get far better/tighter corners.

It doesn't hurt anything to ask, but this sort of "you can't have enough power" (when in fact you are always getting the same overall power, in different ways), and "which design is best" are so fundamentally flawed that it does indeed drive me up the wall.

So, to summarize, AAARRRGGHHH!

LAST EDITED ON Nov-07-04 AT 11:00 PM (CDT)
 
Your "AAARRRGGHHH!" summed it up better than the rest of the post.

>Putting aside the fact that "how tight does it corner" is not now
>nor never has been much of a limitation from the airplane side, nor
>is it now nor has it ever been a significant determing factor in
>competition success, it's not *designs* that corner, it's actual
>airplanes. Ion and Ted had it the rightest - it's not which design
>it is, it's how it's set up, and particularly, how it's trimmed and
>powered.

I think I understand your position now - there are no design differences, just power and trim. No difference in moments, no difference in area ratios, no difference in thrust lines, wing, or stab placement, no difference in planform, no difference in aspect ratio, no difference in airfoil, etc., etc. Aerodynamic design has no effect on maneuverability.

I'm sure a lot of engineers would like to know that - forget the design and go right to the powerplant and the pilot. Come to think of it, maybe that does work for rocket science.

I'm usually nicer than this, but good grief - "... it's not *designs* that corner, it's actual airplanes."???

>Your "AAARRRGGHHH!" summed it up better than the rest of the
>post.
>
>>Putting aside the fact that "how tight does it corner" is not now
>>nor never has been much of a limitation from the airplane side, nor
>>is it now nor has it ever been a significant determing factor in
>>competition success, it's not *designs* that corner, it's actual
>>airplanes. Ion and Ted had it the rightest - it's not which design
>>it is, it's how it's set up, and particularly, how it's trimmed and
>>powered.
>
>I think I understand your position now - there are no design
>differences, just power and trim. No difference in moments,
>no difference in area ratios, no difference in thrust lines,
>wing, or stab placement, no difference in planform, no
>difference in aspect ratio, no difference in airfoil, etc.,
>etc. Aerodynamic design has no effect on maneuverability.

Ok, you want to be hostile, OK, be hostile.

In most cases, in actual fact, there is such negligible difference in the designs that yes, indeed, it hardly makes any difference. Particularly when comparing designs are clones of each other, as above. Changing the tail moment by 2" makes, in most case, a NEGLIGIBLE difference in the results, compared to trim and power differences. That's what I was saying. And the ARRRGH! is the result of this persistent obsession with these design differences when in fact the difference from one version of a particular design to another of the identical design is FAR FAR greater that the difference from one design to the other.

>Im sure a lot of engineers would like to know that - forget
>the design and go right to the powerplant and the pilot.
>Come to think of it, maybe that does work for rocket
>science.

There's hardly any difference in the technical capability to corner in most classic designs. Do the numbers.

>I'm usually nicer than this, but good grief - "... it's not
>*designs* that corner, it's actual airplanes."???

When you can build 3 of the same "design" airplane that all fly essentially identically, please get back to me.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-08-04 AT 08:07 AM (CDT)
 
>
> When you can build 3 of the same "design" airplane that
>all fly essentially identically, please get back to me.
>
> Brett
>

3 Noblers at least, all built and flown by me - and countless copies of other planes, many built by others. Add to that about 3 dozen Nemesis's, 30 Toothpick's, and many, many Voodoo's.

What's striking to me is that you can't tell the difference between inherent design vs. random differences in construction or trim. Unbelievable.

This has turned into too much of an argument. I apologize to the forum, and will be more careful about what questions I ask in the future.

Tom...
It seems to me that you asked a very subjective and ambigious question that you already thought that you knew the answer to.

I'm with Brett here.

See Ya

>Tom...
>It seems to me that you asked a very subjective and
>ambigious question that you already thought that you knew
>the answer to.
>
>I'm with Brett here.
>
>See Ya
>
>Peabody

Actually, no - never flew an Olympic, never flew an Ares, Argus, or Cobra, never flew a Novi, never flew a Chief. Knowing my personal preference for cornering (vs. swoopy, wide, rounded corners), I wanted to find out which of the huge selection of classic designs offered that tendency. This is especially important before devoting limited time for a huge building effort. In asking the question, I offered up my limited experience on classic designs with an uncommon design - the Peacemaker - as a comparison.

That's why you ask the experts, because they're supposed to be experienced (and helpful?). Some responses were very helpful, others less so. Some were downright patronizing in their theme of deflecting the subject and promoting an agenda. Those things come with the Internet.

Despite that, now I know that building an Olympic, Novi, or Chief vs. an Ares, Argus, or Cobra should result in something closer to my liking. More importantly, I can study the differences in the designs (especially the flaps), and incorporate more of them into my own slightly altered versions (design trimming?).

However, you seem to question my motivation. Please understand that there was especially no intent on voting who was more "gallant" with their responses.

Hi Tom,
This has been a very interesting thread, in many ways.
Going against some, I would venture that some designs DO more readily lend themselves to the type of corner that you desire. The Olympic is definitely one of those.
On the other hand, since I have taken to installing an adjustable "slider" elevator horn, I see that you CAN trim a design to just about any level of turn you desire, along with the other turn rate trimming that is now available to us.
A case in point is Aaron's Geo(bolt) XL. (I know, not Classic) At first, there was a lack of a corner because he was starting on the conservative side of trim. We adjusted the slider and opened the handle spacing until it has a VERY good, sharp, corner. Adjustable handles, tip weight, elevator throw, engines, props, etc..
In the '50s and '60s, there was very little that was available to change a plane's characteristics compared to now.
A '59 Ares, Argus or Vulcan can now be "trimmed" to have about any type of corner that's wanted.
This, of course, assuming that the ship is straight, fairly light, and has appropriate power. The type of engines/props now available
has really made maybe the biggest difference when you take all the factors into account. "A ship with a Fox 35 and a Y&O prop could only be trimmed so far."
Bill <><

Tom, one design worth looking at is the original "Imitation" by Ted Fancher. UHP puts out a lazer kit of it. It has the design of making the flaps partial to full span and has an engine mount that allows various size/weight/power engines for experimentation. It is , however, a huge profile. But with little effort a full fuselage could be made and still have the various trim features. Also it comes in the modern era vs the classic era. Otherwise the Nobler in all its various guises seems to be the best pick for your type corners, because I had one that turned almost too tight. If that is possible.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-08-04 AT 09:24 PM (CDT)
 
>Tom, one design worth looking at is the original "Imitation"
>by Ted Fancher. UHP puts out a lazer kit of it. It has the
>design of making the flaps partial to full span and has an
>engine mount that allows various size/weight/power engines
>for experimentation. It is , however, a huge profile. But
>with little effort a full fuselage could be made and still
>have the various trim features. Also it comes in the modern
>era vs the classic era. Otherwise the Nobler in all its
>various guises seems to be the best pick for your type
>corners, because I had one that turned almost too tight. If
>that is possible.

Actually, Ty, the Imitation isn't all that big. It was proportioned similar to my full fuse designs of the era but was made purposely smaller to simulate the wing loading of the full fuse ships which are generally a abit heavier plus have some of the wing hidden inside the fuse. The Imitation was only about 620 or so square inches.

You're absolutely right, though, about the experiment I did with flaps on the original. Your summation is on point and the results pretty much mirrored my earlier comments on flap configurations.

For what it's worth, although the ship clearly turned quicker with the partial span flaps, the controllabililty in corners was not as good. I felt a better compromise was the full span flap configuration (actually, a little less than full span since the flaps ended where the tips started). You might also note that the chord of the flaps was significantly different (plus much narrower) than most designs. I made the flaps a constant percentage of the wing chord at all stations (something I've done on all my subsequent designs). Most designs feature flaps that are tapered so that they are a significantly smaller percentage of the wing chord at the tips than at the root.

By the way, even with the longer span flaps the Imitation corners very aggressively. I've many times wished it had become more popular around the country (it was very, very big in California for 10 or 15 years after it was published). It is an *extremely* competent and competitive stunter.

Ted Fancher

p.s., Many of the California Imitations were full fuse versions, many using the fuselage from my Excitation which was published in roughly the same time period. Amongst many others, a young David Fitzgerald flew such ships for several years after finishing his active duty Air Force years and when getting back into competitive stunt. They appear to have trained him very well. Much to well from my personal recent experience!

p.p.s. Oh, what the heck, let's go whole hog on this Imitation thing.

I commented about my preference for the longer spanned flap configuration even though it didn't turn as aggressively. Here's why I think I preferred it.

The Imitation had a very long tail moments and a large area stab and elevator. It was clearly capable of turning as tight as the pilot could manage almost no matter what was done with the flaps. In my opinion the Pitching moment developed by the flaps (through cambering of the wing which produces a negative pitching moments of its own, having nothing to do with the CG/CL issue) provide a resistance to control deflection ... sort of like applying a little brake to a spinning bicycle tire. This produces a feel for control input which the pilot can feel and react physically to. It also mitigates the tendency to overcontrol abrupt inputs and softens the exits from hard corners.

In other words, if you've got enough tail authority (long, large etc) you can improve the feel the pilot has for guiding the ship precisely by using flap deflection to provide feed back. The more important parameter in search of such feedback is the length (span) of the flapped portion of the wing. Short wide flaps will load the control system but not in the same fashion. This has mostly to do with hinge load, the lower the aspect ratio of the movable surfaces the greater the load when trying to deflect them.

Much better off to use long narrow flaps which produce the feel through developing pitching moment because the load is more moderate and does a lot more to create lift than a short wide flap over a reduced portion of the wing's span.

OK, Everybody confused yet? Sorry.

HI Ted. Mine is ready for primer and it ain't tiny. My comparison is to Flite Streaks, Shoestring Stunters, Magicians, Ring Master,et al. It is standing next to a Teosawki, Cardinal and a Fire Fly and they too are large for profile stunters. Either way I hope to fly it and get into Advanced this coming season, or go back to HO trains. Ha.

Yup, It is bigger than a Flite Streak.

Good luck, I think you'll enjoy it.

>HI Ted. Mine is ready for primer and it ain't tiny. My
>comparison is to Flite Streaks, Shoestring Stunters,
>Magicians, Ring Master,et al. It is standing next to a
>Teosawki, Cardinal and a Fire Fly and they too are large for
>profile stunters. Either way I hope to fly it and get into
>Advanced this coming season, or go back to HO trains. Ha.

There's no thrill in HO trains. Want to buy some Rivarossi steam?

Which locomotives do you have? RP-70 flanges?

LAST EDITED ON Nov-09-04 AT 10:51 PM (CDT)
 
Some of those are Classic legal and they will do 2' radius turns readily!

Ty,

I maintain that there is time for both! So does Windy, although the scale (?) he's chosen might be easier on the eyes.

Actually, these all do 1.5 foot radius, some even 1.25 foot radius:

Big Boy
Mallet
Berkshire
Streamlined Hudson + cars (20th Century Limited)
E-8 Panama Limited (ICRR) + 12 cars (1 ea & duplicates)
0-8-0 Switchers (2)
0-6-0 Switcher
Casey Jones

All are Code 100, early 70's Rivarossi - all with original AHM US boxes. Not sure how much I want to get rid of. I guess this is a real digression. I don't even have the space, much less the time.

Ted,

Yes, I am a little confused, but my college professors said that was a sign of learning. I remember following your designs in Model Aviation, although without the final conclusions you describe about the flaps.

Thank you for the insight.

>it's not *designs* that corner, it's actual airplanes. ........................... - it's not which >design it is, it's how it's set up, and particularly, how it's trimmed and powered.

Very well said!

I'm still confused....there is a HUGE difference between the "tightest cornering" and Best cornering", I bel;ieve....and if you are looking for "best, I would venture that a whole bunch of planes have potential, depending upon trim and your "eye".....but, if you are looking for TIGHTEST (that's the title of the post), then I would think that a combat wing stunter or a Nezenband design would lead the list.

See Ya

>I'm still confused....there is a HUGE difference between the
>"tightest cornering" and Best cornering", I bel;ieve....and
>if you are looking for "best, I would venture that a whole
>bunch of planes have potential, depending upon trim and your
>"eye".....but, if you are looking for TIGHTEST (that's the
>title of the post), then I would think that a combat wing
>stunter or a Nezenband design would lead the list.

Maybe I should have been more specific before. Luckily rich appears to have stated my view.

The All American Senior Marivin used to fly had a seriously ****tight**** corner. It had about a 8" tail moment. "Tight" is a bad measure, it is only half the story.

Best turner? Chief...no question about it. This was once proven by Ted Fancher at Tucson. Best corners I've ever seen. No, he didn't win. Victimized by "mysterious" engine adjustment.

>Best turner? Chief...no question about it. This was once
>proven by Ted Fancher at Tucson. Best corners I've ever
>seen. No, he didn't win. Victimized by "mysterious" engine
>adjustment.
>
>Mike Keville

Wasn't the Nobler based on the Chief?

>>Best turner? Chief...no question about it. This was once
>>proven by Ted Fancher at Tucson. Best corners I've ever
>>seen. No, he didn't win. Victimized by "mysterious" engine
>>adjustment.
>>
>>Mike Keville
>
>Wasn't the Nobler based on the Chief?

You've got to be kidding. DOC

I believe he refered rather kindly to the Johnson as a piece of #$%@
I too thought the corners were outstanding. If you search through
Georges writings, at one time he was flying Chiefs,and wanted a plane
that was different looking, but retained the Chiefs flying ability.
He thought the Chief was a very good plane. I remember him saying at
a couple of VSC'S that the Nobler was in a way a upgraded Chief.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-07-04 AT 02:24 PM (CDT)
 
> I believe he refered rather kindly to the Johnson as a
>piece of #$%@
> I too thought the corners were outstanding. If you search
>through
>Georges writings, at one time he was flying Chiefs,and
>wanted a plane
>that was different looking, but retained the Chiefs flying
>ability.
>He thought the Chief was a very good plane. I remember him
>saying at
>a couple of VSC'S that the Nobler was in a way a upgraded
>Chief.
>

Absolutely correct. In fact, the Nobler was a mod to the Chief, specifically, longer tail moment to eliminate "snap rolls" (presumably stalls from excess rotation for the amount of lift), and a tapered wing. This was all laid out by GMA in one of Bill Winter's columns about 20 years ago. As near as I can tell, it was never a secret.

Winter had a lot of interesting information - for example, the development of the Fox 35 (began as a practical joke where some people talked some kid into putting something like an Ohllson in a Chief - which turned out to work A WHOLE LOT BETTER than the big 60's they all "knew" were better - sound familiar, 20FP fans?). Winter's writing style was, by any measure, strange, but he eventually got around to a lot of interesting tidbits. Maybe it wasn't always cold, hard facts, but the stories were very entertaining.

> I believe he refered rather kindly to the Johnson as a
>piece of #$%@
> I too thought the corners were outstanding. If you search
>through
>Georges writings, at one time he was flying Chiefs,and
>wanted a plane
>that was different looking, but retained the Chiefs flying
>ability.
>He thought the Chief was a very good plane. I remember him
>saying at
>a couple of VSC'S that the Nobler was in a way a upgraded
>Chief.
>
>Walter

Well, Walter, I certainly hope I didn't say such a thing. It is remotely possible that under the duress of overrunning twice because I couldn't get it started (losing landing and pattern points) and still placing a fairly close third or something, I might have expressed a certain level of displeasure with the starting capabilities of the little Johnson "S".

However....!

Once that engine was running it was a fantastic stunt engine. Absolutely perfectly matched to the needs of the Chief. A little more "poop" than a Fox but still the same modest power change with a predictable break. A wonderful engine. I might note that that was the same engine I was flying in an Ares when I first started going out with Shareen back in the late '50s. It might well have an excuse for not starting quite as quick as it did 35 or 40 years before. Lord knows, the same is true of me!

The following year I flew the same airplane with a McGas .40 (the redhead McCoys modded by big George). Lots more power but nearly as well suited to the airframe. Started great but didn't fly nearly as well.

Welllll, If you say so,I was standing next to Bobby Hunt who was
judging, and we would exchange coments between manuvers, after your
triangles, I remarked that they were quite good, he said yah think.
But more to the point, do you recall your remark about the plane after
the flite? It was something to the effect," that these old designs
can fly quite a bet better than we give them credit for", if memory
serves.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-09-04 AT 00:43 AM (CDT)
 
> Welllll, If you say so,I was standing next to Bobby Hunt
>who was
>judging, and we would exchange coments between manuvers,
>after your
>triangles, I remarked that they were quite good, he said yah
>think.
>But more to the point, do you recall your remark about the
>plane after
>the flite? It was something to the effect," that these old
>designs
>can fly quite a bet better than we give them credit for", if
>memory
>serves.
>
>Walter

Probably wasn't the first time...or the last!

Sort of the point that Brett has been trying to make with only modest success for quite a while now. A remotely normally configured stunt plane has to have some pretty squirrely things done to it to make it impossible to trim it to fly pretty well in the right hands.

I think maybe the point that is being misheard in this debate regarding "tight turning" vice "good turning" is the fact I touched on very early in the discussion. In the final analysis a stunter has to be brought to a state of trim that allows the individual pilot to fly it to the best of its potential. This is almost always a matter of neuro-muscular co-ordination of the pilot. Again, with proper trimming any of the famous designs we've talked about can be configured so that they can turn as tight as the pilot is capable of flying with precision. The fact that the manner in which you achieve that serendipitous configuration differs with the format of a given airplane is largely irrelevant.

Just as a gross example of what can be done in apparent disregard of conventional wisdom...

A month or so ago Brett, Jim Aron and my self took turns flying my Tucker Special which was on the cover of the VSC issue of STUNT NEWS. This airplane has placed reasonably well at several competitive classic events including a fifth and a third at a couple of VSC plus a close second place at the Nats one year.

Unfortunately, it never really flew very well and, since I don't spend a lot of time working with my classic ships (like, fly them at a contest and hang 'em on the wall 'till the next one) I'd never really done any serious trimming on it.

On the surface it seemed to have a lot going for it. A very good engine, the Rustler .40, reasonably straight and very light...around 38 oz when first flown.

The problem with the airplane is that it was very demanding to make it go the same place twice. Turn rates were inconsistent and it wanted to hunt. Plus, it had to be flown pretty darn fast to be capable of decent scores.

To make a long story short (or as close as Fancher can get to short...other than personal height) what we did was load the airplane up with lead evenly distributed around the CG. We each flew it first as is, around 39 or 40 oz with a fairly far forwaard CG. We universally agreed it was a pretty disgusting flyer...very hard to fly well.

We then spread four ounces of Prather stick on lead at the wing root distributed top and bottom and on both sides of the fuse, centered just slightly aft of the original CG.

WE each flew it again and were much happier with the performance. It was starting to get predictable and would track around rounds and fly corners much more predictably.

Well, we thought, if a little's good a lots gotta be a lot better.

By George, it was!!! We added another four oz in the same distribution pattern for a total of eight additional oz bringing the little classic ship up to 48 including the tape to stick 'em on and everything.

This ship now, in the estimation of all three pilots, was significantly more flyable than either of the previous configurations. It now flew well enough that I wouldn't be afraid to push it hard enough to be competitive with the top pilots at VSC or the Nats. When the wing loading was much lighter my actual goal was to fly it well enough that it wouldn't be embarrassing.

Clearly, the original configuration was developing more lift than necessary (we didn't fiddle with flap elevator ratio during the test). As we loaded it up lift and load closed in on one another and the ship began to fly around corners as directed instead of swooping into them. Surprisingly (until you analyze it,)it could be flown slower with better precision. This was largely because the heavier weight translated to greater line tension which allowed the necessary control deflections to be achieved without aggressive pilot input.

The point, of course, is that airplanes can be trimmed to do what you want them to do. Even an old design with a long nose, a short tail and too much flap area. Other than the added weight the very nice flying ship was identical to the lighter dog we started out with.

Interesting.

Not kidding at all. The original Nobler was developed from experiments with the first version Chief,(polywog airfoil), not to be confused with the Joe Wagner second version. I once saw drawings of the Chief and Nobler, done by Wild Bill N. and when superimposed over each other, the models lined up in proportion. When Bill showed the drawings to George, George replied, "Thats what I keep telling em, it was based on the Chief!". Don't believe me, ask Wild Bill. We were all in my van when this happend. Thanks for listening.

Chief/Nobler. In another thread I mentioned the fact that the 1949 Chief horizontal stab/elevator are exactly like the 1952 MAN version Nobler in plan form, only thinner in airfoil. I have them hanging side by side in my garage. Last night, just for fun, I rewatched the video put out by Bob Hunt on the "Father of Modern Stunt" in which George states that he had many, many letters to and from Bob Palmer and used the Chief as the basis for his new plane that he wanted to fly slower, razzed by his older brother, like the real stunt planes of the era. He used the taper for more stability, and goes on to tell somewhat as to why he did what he did and mentions that Bill Winter was like a father to him over the years.

nope ..u guys are all wrong....it was dennis severance's "flying saucer" that made th tightest turns....ull find him in old 50s magazines he flew in all th cal nats 52,55 and 59 never saw him in tex.,pa.or ill ..... jim

Those are 4 GREAT LOOKING AIRPALNES.

Also, four reasons I don't even try to paint anymore. Planes like those, and the Adamsin family, turned me into a Monocote artist.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-07-04 AT 12:18 PM (CDT)
 
Beautiful models. could you give us a quick rundowm on the finishing methods for each model please

Regards

Mike

Good thread, I'm enjoying it immensely.

RE Phil's pretty planes and this discussion.

It is valuable to note in the picture the difference in flap configuration between the Olympic and the other designs in the pix (with the exception of the Lark which has, as Brett suggested, is at something of a HP hole compared to the others). Note in particular the partial span and reduced chord.

This smaller flap area and reduced spanwise flap distribution reduces the negative pitching moment I aqddressed in an earlier post. In and of itself this produces a more responsive airplane (assuming you still developm enough lift not to stall ... once again, not much of a problem with the powerplant).

In fact, in Bob Gialdini's article (and on the Olympic plans as I recall) there is a comment to the effect that the shorter flap will turn "like now" whereas the full span flaps will produce a more classic and softer turn... words approximate.

Heck, just looked up my copy of the article and in the beautiful cutaway three-D drawing is the following statement "...The flaps used on my Olympic are sized and moved per the NACA idealized flap formula, which produces maximum lift at 30 degrees and doesn't increase drag radically. Thus, the model turns a SNAPPY CLASS square corner like the T-Bird and the Shark 45. There are a lot of flyiers that prefer the slower, smoother corner of the Argus, Ares, Nobler school. The Olympic can be simply reworked to do this also. Enlarge the flaps per the sketch. Do not change the lingages and you will haave a ship to turn like SLOWER".

The sketch shows both the flaps as you see them on Phil's airplane plus the full span, broader chord (at the tips) alternative.

See and compare to my comments regarading the PEACEMAKER earlier. NOthing new under the sun. Just gotta know where to look. Doing this stuff for 50+ years probably helps!

Ted,

Of course, what you say - but the Nobler can be redesigned, well, the Olympic was a Nobler in disguise. So was my Akro. Get this, the moment arm from hingeline to hingeline increased to 14 & 7/8" I don't know why I didn't go all the way to 15" except for using an OS .35S! O.K. the big deal with my Akro was the 23&1/2" stab elevator combo with the stab being about 60% of the total. Mike flew his Gypsy and then my Akro and said wow, what a corner! So I'm assuming it was a better quality corner with a tighter radius than a .40 size Gypsy. Well, that was before the incredible corner caused the Aerogloss paint to craze like a cracked mirror. I had to sand it down and repaint it with Super Poxy paint and in the process it gained about 7 ounces and lost some of the corner, but would still do a reasonable one. When I finally did get to try flying it again in early 74 (I think?) at Concord CA contest, it met it's end due to some gunk being in the tank and cloging up the filter. I then was sumarily drafted to judge the rest of the day to the tune of some sunburn! I'll post some pictures of it if I ever am able to get a scanner for this beastly computer of mine!

>Good thread, I'm enjoying it immensely.
>Heck, just looked up my copy of the article and in the
>beautiful cutaway three-D drawing is the following statement
>"...The flaps used on my Olympic are sized and moved per the
>NACA idealized flap formula, which produces maximum lift at
>30 degrees and doesn't increase drag radically. Thus, the
>model turns a SNAPPY CLASS square corner like the T-Bird and
>the Shark 45. There are a lot of flyiers that prefer the
>slower, smoother corner of the Argus, Ares, Nobler school.
>The Olympic can be simply reworked to do this also. Enlarge
>the flaps per the sketch. Do not change the lingages and
>you will haave a ship to turn like SLOWER".
>
>The sketch shows both the flaps as you see them on Phil's
>airplane plus the full span, broader chord (at the tips)
>alternative.
>
>See and compare to my comments regarading the PEACEMAKER
>earlier. NOthing new under the sun. Just gotta know where
>to look. Doing this stuff for 50+ years probably helps!
>
>Ted

After five hours of applying masking tape to my new plane and no end in sight……..gotta take a break.

Since this debate seems to be in full momentum, something else comes to mind. So here’s a bit of a curve relevant to my learned collogue Ted’s comments re. the Olympic and the anomalies of flap proportions.

Over the past year I have developed an almost unnatural fascination with props and the immediate effect they can have on performance. Pictured are two props. Both are 10/6 and both are Rev-up. The prop at the top is the EW. It has virtually the same effect as full span flaps in that it will buffer an otherwise very snappy corner. Conversely, the prop at the bottom of the pic will return that snappy corner. Both of these props were available in the late 60’s. So before going to full span flaps to buffer the turn maybe a simple prop change could produce the desired results.

NOthing new under the sun. Just gotta know where
>to look. Doing this stuff for 50+ years probably helps!
>
>Ted

Does 47 years count????
Phil

Phil,

I used the E-W on mine to help control the corner, else it was nearly imposible to get an accurate 90 or 120 degrees! It's a lot easier than building new flaps too!

>
>Does 47 years count????
>Phil

Phil,
No.
Ted

And we know what he was doing for many of those years.

You nailed it, too - Ted. That's a good point about the smaller flaps on the Peacemaker and the Olympic. The quote you include from the Olympic article sums it up well, too. My preference is for the hard corner, instead of the "slower, smoother" one. Now I know what to look for, and how to modify the design accordingly.

There's probably some optimum between reduced flap/hard corners and more flap/smoother turns. Otherwise, flaps might not be used at all. It might be interesting to correlate flap/tail area ratios with reported differences in hard vs. smooth corners. Or might it be a different effect from less outer wing operating with flaps?

Well, as to tight corners, the original Top Flite Flite Streak will do a very tight corner, but it can stall right after and you will get some bobbles, but it does turn tight. I used it in slow combat for that very reason. The thick airfoil is a help here. Others have flown it in classic stunt and with the right engine, prop combo and trim will do a great pattern with tight corners. But I doubt this is what you are looking for, but to give my answer, it's the Flite Streak, which is in the classic era.

If all your looking for is the tightest corner, build a Bi-Slob. It will in fact, turn the tightest corner you and I will ever see. But I dont ever recall seeing one flying on Top Twenty Day at the NATs. I guess there really is more to a competitive stuntship than a tight corner.

LAST EDITED ON Nov-12-04 AT 08:53 PM (CST)
 
TOM B,
I think I have mentioned it before but it's worth mentioning again. In my short UC expierence the tightest turning classic ship I have ever seen was Bob Whitely's Shark 35. I will repeat what I said before. I was at a contest and I told my friend to come and watch Bob's flight as his airplane did not turn. Of course my friend thought I was crazy. After watching the flight he agreed that the plane had no corner. It just came down out of a wingover to the 4 or 5 ft. level and in the blink of an eye it was inverted going in another direction. You could not even guess what the radius was because you never saw it. I have seen the Olympic and it is good but Bob's Shark still has it beat in my eyes. There are many out there who have seen this ship also and will tell you the same story.

Edit: Keeping what Ted said about flaps in mind. Note that both the Shark and the Olympic have the same short flap configuration. The Shark 35 was Lews Shark 45 scaled down. Tom Dixon sells the plans for it and to my knowledge it was never a kit although it did appear in one of the popular model mags some time back.

I thought the Shark was Lew McFarland's. Did Bob Whitely make the Shark 35, and then Lew just made the 45 version?

Anyway, sounds interesting - I always loved my Shark 15.

Thanks.