Wing thickness

In the stunt community,when percent wing thickness is refered to, is the flap cord included in the wing cord? I was looking at a set of JUNAR plans By Bill Werwage.The wing is 2" thick at the root. The cord is 11 7/16 at the root w/out the flap and 14 3/8 with the flap. The percentage thickness is 17.48% w/out flap and 13.91% with flap.
I always thought thicker wings were generally better for stunt yet Bill W's are thinner than many other modern designs. What would be a reason for a thinner wing for stunt?

Flap is included in the calculation. Currell

For a while, the thickness issue worked along regional lines, with many East Coast flyers favoring the thicker ones. Some of these sections approached 25%, by the way. The altitude where you live can be a factor in deciding thickness, too.

Bill Rabe did some original research on section thickness in an early 70s American Modeler, in his "Go For Broke" article. I think it is available through PAMPA. I recommend it highly.

The big disadvantage of "thick" sections: Drag. But if you've got the HP...You end up with a big airplane, a heavy one to boot, and with thick airfoil. And many are successful.

Werwage's planes are noted for their very light weight. Perhaps he feel he simply doesn't need a lot of section to attain his goals. He ends up with a lighter, less draggy plane. Equally successful.

>Bill Rabe did some original research
>on section thickness in an
>early 70s American Modeler, in
>his "Go For Broke" article.
>I think it is available
>through PAMPA. I recommend it
>highly.

That would be Al Rabe, one of the true innovators in the event.

>The big disadvantage of "thick" sections:
>Drag. But if you've got
>the HP...You end up with
>a big airplane, a heavy
>one to boot, and with
>thick airfoil. And many are
>successful.

Not necessarily heavy. I agree with the assesement of the drag, which is what I consider the primary advantage of think wings.

Before going down this path too far, take into account the response to Randy Powell's question.