LAST EDITED ON Nov-30-04 AT 11:53 PM (CST) >Well,
>
>I was wondering if anyone has built a prototype from the kit
>to determine if the kit parts and structure come in within
>the design weight of the aircraft? Oh, yeah, Ted just what
>is the design weight of the Trivial Pursuit?
>
>Jim Pollock, Aduacter et Strenue
Well, Jim. What an ugly question!
The design weight and the weight at which yours truly has produced them are not quite the same thing. When this ship was designed (the original was built back in 1962 or so) we were still thinking in terms of ST .46s although it was intended for a tuned pipe .40 or .46. Nonetheless, our wing loading references at the time were based on the "at that time" traditional expectations.
The original idea was for a final weight of around 57 to no more than 60 oz. The original T.P. came in closer to 65 oz and grew a couple of more oz in the trimming process. It also won one team trials and placed second at three or four nationals using both OS .40 and .46 VFs and later P.A. 61s. The heaviest it ever weighed was 68 oz at a team trials weigh in. I don't recall the powerplant configuration at the time.
I never did get one less than 62 oz (I built three total, the second was originally red, white and blue and called Great Expectations and was later refinished in the glorious Pond Scum Purple and called the Final Edition. It won a Walker Cup in each color scheme, flew in the 1994 Shanghai WCs and earned a place on the 2004 USA World Championship team. The last version was the Special Edition, red, white and blue that competed and helped the USA win back the World Championship in F2B in Muncie this year.
Bottom line is, the ship flies very well up to and including 68 oz with good trim and a potent power train.
All that is not to say, however, that it wouldn't be even better at a lighter weight. David Fitz has always placed performance over appearance and all of his Stargazers (T.P. derivatives) have been lighter than mine (don't take this the wrong way. His airplanes are extremely well done and achieve a lot of their reduced bulk by his use of tinted coverings on the wing and tail vice my "fancy" but heavy paint jobs. He also has employed a lot of CF technology in landing gears and tanks).
David's best version, which won the Walker Cup this year, is very close to the design concept of 57 oz and is an absolute killer airplane. He won the Walker Cup going away with this ship. He has won four previous Walker Cups with other versions which averaged in the 62 to 63 oz range.
The bottom line is that the airplane is capable of excellent performance even up to the high 60 oz range. I encourage any who build it not to take the foregoing as license to pile on the paint. It will be better the closer to 60 oz you can get it. But, having said that, don't hang it on the wall if it comes out at 68 or 9 oz.
By the way, note that this top five level performance at the weights discussed was achieved using engines from .40 to .61, often in the very same airplane. This goes back to some of the threads where Brett has discussed the "horsepower" issue regarding airplane size and weight and the "can't have enough" of same, etc. It may or may not be worth entering into this discussion again as it usually breeds a little heat, but the "horsepower" produced to provide equivilant performance is pretty much the same regardless of the displacement used to achieve it. Which, again, would lead us into the discussion of power "delivery" rather than raw "horsepower".
Whether we do so or not, it is worth keeping in mind that identical airplanes have flown equally competitive patterns with engines one of which is 50% larger in displacement than the other. The results are in the record books. At least proof of the right to consider the evidence.
Ted
Edited to correct David Fitz' Walker Cup total. At my advanced age I can't count that high and likely won't ever get to!
)