Stuka Stunt Control Line Forum
Archive, 2000–2021 · recovered from the Internet Archive
Forums › Stuka Stunt Main Forum

Flying in wind

Stuka Stunt Main Forum · 52 of 52 known posts recovered

LNeumann · Jul 19, 2003 06:08 PM

#0 source
Following up on Ted's earlier suggestion, let's post here methods you use to fly through wind. Just to keep it simple, let's consider wind in the range of about 15-20 miles per hour. That is beyond a simple breeze, and something that can make flying "difficult". But it is still, nontheless, a flyable wind, and one in which a pattern of some sorts can be flown.

Since each person's set-up will be different, there should be different ideas suggested. For instance, some will use lower pitch props to keep from winding up. Others will go to higher pitch props to gain more speed and penetration. some may just crank in a little more rpm and go. What are your suggestions?

And, Ted, since you started this (gotta blame somebody) what would you change, either in set-up or in approaching various maneuvers, and what would you suggest for others?

Leonard Neumann

Jake · Jul 19, 2003 07:08 PM

#1 source
If it gets to the point where one is concerned (justly) over the safety of the VERY expensive airplane and you feel you can't give a decent presentation- relax and go fly a kite (or two). It's another one of my hobbies and great fun.

John


EricV · Jul 19, 2003 07:12 PM

#2 source
Len - When it gets THAT windy, I'll tell ya what I switch, PLANES!! I put my IntrepidXL back in the truck and take out my foamy 500 Sq inch combat Gotchya Streak that I have mounted an OS40FS on. This combo is hard to beat for flying full pattern in 18+ MPH winds. The little stroker pulls that combat wing through the wind like little toot. Fly it at 5.2 laps on 63ft lines and just have fun.

Actually, I stumbled on this combo on a lark. I just wanted some 4stroke experience, and figured what the heck, I've the combat ship, and a Fox never could haul it well enough, let's see what the stroker does. I did the whole pattern TWICE on the very first tank. I now only put 1 3/4 ounces in the tank!

This leads me to think of an interesting question. At the Nats, under what circumstances can you switch planes???? After Todd crashed, could he have pulled a backup plane out and flew it? (Maybe with newly assigned appearance points?) How does this work?

EricV

Trostle · Jul 19, 2003 09:17 PM

#4 source
LAST EDITED ON Jul-20-03 AT 01:06 AM (CDT)
 
>This leads me to think of an interesting question. At the
>Nats, under what circumstances can you switch planes????
>After Todd crashed, could he have pulled a backup plane out
>and flew it? (Maybe with newly assigned appearance points?)
>How does this work?
>
>EricV

This is already a bit off topic, but the question was asked. The rulebook is very clear on this one. Paragraph 2.2:

"Contestants will be allowed the use of a second model if the first is damaged or destroyed. Appearance points will be awarded to the secona model following verification of substantial damage to the first model. The second model and its appearance points will be used for subsequent attempts."

(first edit was to correct typing errors. This dum computer kant spel very gud.)

Keith

LNeumann · Jul 19, 2003 09:18 PM

#5 source
LAST EDITED ON Jul-19-03 AT 09:24 PM (CDT)
 
>
>This leads me to think of an interesting question. At the
>Nats, under what circumstances can you switch planes????
>After Todd crashed, could he have pulled a backup plane out
>and flew it? (Maybe with newly assigned appearance points?)
>How does this work?
>
>EricV

You are allowed a back up, but you fly it without appearance points. (OK, after reading Keith's post, I have to edit mine. You are allowed appearance points.)

Now I had considered having a combat type ship (on wheels) as back up and bring it out in a situation like Friday. That plane is expendable but also far more capable of flying in those conditions. You need something with a little more speed to penetrate. Maybe an 80 mph combat? Dunno.

Bob Baron lost his plane once (I think it was at FAI) and brought out his .065 Humbug as back up and flew his last officials with it. It was interesting, at least. Didn't do too bad at that.

Leonard Neumann

Mikey · Jul 19, 2003 09:16 PM

#3 source
Well for what it is worth a properly trimmed model will fly in the wind without changing anything on the set up. There are a few things that people can change but it has been my experience that making trim changes for the wind is a good way to get yourself in BIG trouble in a hurry. Sure many people will change to shorter lines, add more tip weight, remove nose weight, change props, increase handle spacing, and increasing the engines rpm’s only to find that they are not ready for the way the model handles.
The only thing I would consider and/or recommend changing is the prop. You may have to experiment with a number of props until you find the one that works. When you do, set it aside until the wind comes up then bolt that sucker on! If you use C/F props, then try washing out the tips (decreasing the pitch ¼ to ½°) but don’t touch the needle unless you have to (read that as really windy). The washed out tips will automatically increase the engines rpm’s and give you a little more pulling power.
In my opinion the placement of each maneuver in the wind is the most important aspect of completing a pattern in the wind. For example, biasing round and square loops to left for insides and to the right for outsides. In addition, slightly increasing the size of the each maneuver will also help get you through the pattern in a stiff wind. We all try to fly the perfect pattern on every flight but when the wind comes up, open up the shapes and fly a little bigger. Your score will not suffer as much as trying to force the model through a rulebook size maneuver.
Obviously, the more you practice in the wind the better you will get to know your equipment and learn what and what doesn’t work in the wind. Also your flying ability will improve and this will raise you confidence in dealing with this type of weather. The more you fly in the wind the closer to rulebook size you can fly each maneuver. At contests I feel confident that I can fly in just about any wind and this gives me a big advantage over most of the other flyers. I know I can handle the wind because I know my equipment and have practiced flying in adverse conditions.

Mikey

Maverick · Jul 20, 2003 07:40 PM

#9 source
LAST EDITED ON Jul-20-03 AT 07:41 PM (CDT)
 
I practice in the wind and I have my wind set up. I fly as much as possible and live in a windy area. If I were not to fly in the wind it would shorten my practice by at least half.

I have at least 2 props that I have ready for the windy days and 2 globs of clay that stay on my field box. Many practice secessions has taught me how much this amount of clay is and I put one glob on the tail under the stab in 10+ mph wind and add the 2nd. in 15+mph. I may also add some line spacing at the handle in 20+mph wind like we had at the Nat's. Keep notes as to what you do and in what weather and be prepared. I did not give even a second thought as to if I could or would fly on Friday in Muncie. Do not however forget to return the trim to its original settings. Another reason to keep notes. You plane is going to wind up some but the motor does not have to if you are running a pipe set up. In any case learn to step into the wind-up areas and step back from the loose lines. This sounds simple but to do a good maneuver and to do it right takes timing and practice to keep your shapes will dancing in the circle. Move your loop with the back side wind-up is returning into the wind. This slows the speed and makes it much easier. I find that about 10 to 15 degrees will do it. When it comes to the squares 8s I move the center to my right about 5 degrees. This is my personal preference but go out and find yours. It does not take a heavy wind to learn these things, 10 mph is plenty to learn in.
I am not at odds with Mikey on this subject, if you are not prepared then simply do not fly. If your goal however is to compete at the highest level then it is no different than making lines or carving props or making tanks, the end goal is to be prepared for any and all conditions.
Richard Oliver

Howard Rush · Jul 20, 2003 07:51 PM

#10 source
Richard was doing plenty of flying early in the week when it was too windy for anybody else. On Friday he was like Br'er Rabbit in the brier patch.

Jim Pollock · Jul 20, 2003 08:09 AM

#6 source
Len,

You also know, because your just as old or older a dog than I that in the good old days when it was windy we just cranked the needle in for a little more speed and biased our manuvers as best we could. With pipes and carbon props there seems to be a lot more choices these days. I would probably have used a little less pitch on the tips of my prop in those conditions so that I could run more RPM as well without increasing lap times too much. I would probably have gone down to about 5.1 - 5.2 from my normal 5.4 also use a little shorter lines as well. Of course the hardest manuver for me to get through in the wind has proven to be the four leaf. Specifically the second loop, outside on the bottom! I have come pretty close to the ground in this loop on many occasions when the wind was blowing over 15-20 MPH. So Ted, I have seen you come pretty close to the ground on this loop as well. What is the best way to keep the plane out of the pavement when you are using what you believe is full control? Thanks in advance.


Jim Pollock, an Open flyer wannabe.

LNeumann · Jul 20, 2003 08:59 AM

#7 source
>Len,
>
>You also know, because your just as old or older a dog than I

My birthday was on Saturday so I feel older already

>that in the good old days when it was windy we just
>cranked the needle in for a little more speed and biased our
>manuvers as best we could.

Interesting you should say that, because that is exactly the approach we used with the 35 FP or 53 magnum. Just dial it up a little bit and go.

>With pipes and carbon props
>there seems to be a lot more choices these days. I would
>probably have used a little less pitch on the tips of my
>prop in those conditions so that I could run more RPM as
>well without increasing lap times too much. I would
>probably have gone down to about 5.1 - 5.2 from my normal
>5.4 also use a little shorter lines as well.

Now this is an interesting question and one that should suggest a separate thread of its own--the concept of changing the pitch (either way) at just the tips. I, for one, would want to maintain the efficiency of the prop, and would opt for more or less pitch across the board.

There seem to be two theories here, and I was hoping someone would chime in. One is to go to less pitch and more rpm so there will be less whip up in the wind. The other is to go to slightly more pitch so that you can get more penetration in the wind. Using the criteria that I set up (15-20 mph) some may be more concerned with whip up than penetration as such. In heavy, gusting winds, penetration may get the nod.

With Matt's pipe set up as he now has it, he can dial the needle a half a turn or so without varying the lap speed. It will change power, but not lap speed, and is far less prone to whip up. Thus, to go to higher lap speed without making changes in the set up (pipe length) one would need to change props to one with slightly more pitch. Then I would opt for more pitch across the board.


>Of course the
>hardest manuver for me to get through in the wind has proven
>to be the four leaf. Specifically the second loop, outside
>on the bottom! I have come pretty close to the ground in
>this loop on many occasions when the wind was blowing over
>15-20 MPH. So Ted, I have seen you come pretty close to the
>ground on this loop as well. What is the best way to keep
>the plane out of the pavement when you are using what you
>believe is full control? Thanks in advance.
>
>
>Jim Pollock, an Open flyer wannabe.

You are on your own here. We will wait for Ted's answer on this one. I noticed Ted experiencing a severe whip up here as well with several of his loops being inches off the pavement. I am wondering what he might suggest as a "could have done" solution to this situation.

Leonard Neumann

N42222 · Jul 20, 2003 06:24 PM

#8 source
THAT day-For what it's worth- the first thing I did upon realizing we were in for strong winds was to make up a new set of lines-somewhat shorter,(66ft) but I mainly needed the strength of new lines.(I'd be interested in Allan's lines-solids, cables,etc.) I was flying a 72oz SVII with a Randy ST60. 12.5x5.5 Bolly. The first flight I added 100rpm so left the ground at 9700rpm which quickly turned into a straight 2 stroke. I only got as far as the horizontal 8s before the wind-up wore me out. Things were just too fast for me to keep up. Next flight, I backed the rpm down to about 9400 and flew in a 4-2 mode. I gave up on sizes and just tried for some semblance of shape. Entry into the overhead 8s had given grief to many before me so I made a big slow loop up to the entry point. Too many planes had gone slack with the hard pull-up to the entry straight into the wind. Phil Nickle's Bear did the cutest little slack loop at that juncture! And he recovered! Going into the clover, I was pumped because I knew that a complete pattern with that 25 pattern pts. would move me up considerably. That 2nd loop as I started toward terra firma the engine sagged. I use muffler pressure so surely it wasn't drowning the plug-or was it? I bailed out. Losing those points moved me down one whole place! So there you have an inside look at an Advance flyer's mindset in the wind that day. Like I said at the onset-for what it's worth. Next year I'll be on the pipe. Best Nats I ever had! Best regards to all,

Dale Gleason

PP van der Meer · Jul 22, 2003 07:25 AM

#11 source
I am flying in the Netherlands, Europe. We have quite a lot of wind. When I was learning the schedule I asked on Isky's board for a perfect wind flyer. In the end I just kept on practising with my old Nobler. I really was thrown in the deep at some contests when it started to storm when it was my turn. Because the Nobler was not looking it's best anymore I dared to try and succeeded! Nowadays I'm not afraid anymore for a little wind. You just have to do it. I used to give the engine (Fox 35) more RPM, but when the engine runs faster you cannot fly a precise schedule. Placing is all-important, and don't kill airspeed with to small manouvres and too sharp corners. The Nobler was better in the wind than the Argus (with Fox 35 ABC0 I fly with now. It sometimes seemed just like a balloon on the other end of the circle. It just kept sticking to the hemisphere it flew on. I read some people used shorter lines in the wind. With the Argus I experienced that while I normally flew 17,5 meter lines (eyelet to eyelet 58 feet?), that it flew BETTER in the wind on 18 meter lines (eyelet to eyelet, 60 feet). The part of the circle it flew with the wind, it gains more speed on longer lines so it gets thorough the manouevre and into the wind better than on shorter lines. Im I just dreaming this, or do other people experience the same? Maybe it works just for lighter smaller planes.
PP

Mikey · Jul 22, 2003 08:17 AM

#12 source
I would like to share with you one of the interesting things that I learned about flying in the wind. After trying all kinds of set ups for the wind and really fine tuning the trim of the model, I found that it flew far better in calm conditions with the wind set up. After thinking about it for a while it accrued to me that the model must have been slightly out of trim beforehand although there were no signs of any trim problems. Flying the model in the wind really doubles or triples every little wiggle and wobble and shows you precisely where you need to make trim adjustments.

Mikey

LNeumann · Jul 22, 2003 09:04 AM

#13 source
>I would like to share with you one of the interesting things
>that I learned about flying in the wind. After trying all
>kinds of set ups for the wind and really fine tuning the
>trim of the model, I found that it flew far better in calm
>conditions with the wind set up. After thinking about it
>for a while it accrued to me that the model must have been
>slightly out of trim beforehand although there were no signs
>of any trim problems. Flying the model in the wind really
>doubles or triples every little wiggle and wobble and shows
>you precisely where you need to make trim adjustments.
>
>Mikey

Which is another good argument for learning to fly in some wind. If you can, start on a day when the wind is going to increase and work up to your comfort level. In the process you will not only learn to fly in wind, but you will learn how much wind you can tolerate. Don't go beyond that level. You don't want to foolishly push yourself into the ground.

And, as a bounus, as Mikey mentions, you may even get your plane in better trim.

Leonard Neumann

John Ashford · Jul 22, 2003 09:06 AM

#14 source
Mikey,

You are exactly right! Wind will bring out every trim flaw in the plane. I have flown all my life in Oklahoma and the Texas panhandle. We consider light winds 10-15. If you can't fly in this then you just don't fly. 15-20 is the norm and a "windy" day is 20-25. Calm days are as rare as hen's teeth and the Texas boys don't do well in calm conditions because we don't have much experience with these conditions. Having said all of the above, I do make two adjustments for wind. I fly 2' shorter lines on my Hurricanes and set the engine 100 more RPM. I also try to open up my manuevers because they are going to be a bit faster in the wind.

I certainly agree with some of the other posts. You really need to fly in the wind in order to know what your plane will do and to become comfortable with it's response and your ability to deal with it. Pick a real windy day (and that depends on your definition of windy) and just fly level at first. Try some really high bottom loops and see what your plane does and what your reaction is. Continue from there with the other maneuvers but don't rush it. It's all a matter of confidence. When you have confidence in the plane and your ability you have it licked. Hope this helps.

John (the only member of PAMPA in Pampa) Ashford

Ted Fancher · Jul 24, 2003 02:39 PM

#15 source
LAST EDITED ON Jul-24-03 AT 02:46 PM (CDT)
 
I purposely stayed away from this thread for a bit to let others share their thoughts. I think a lot of good info turned up.

Here are a few thoughts of my own. Might take a couple of shots at it since I've only got a little time before I've gotta get back to work.

First of all, flying in the wind requires thoughtful consideration right from the get go. Not the day of the windy contest...pretty much from the day you set pencil to paper or start cutting balsa on someone else's design.

Proper CG location and appropriate tail volume are part and parcel of flying in the wind successfully. In addition, large area ships (of any weight) are more problem flying in the wind because the bigger area is pretty much like a large kite when we fly in our tethered environment. his is a large part of the reason we watch some small classic era ships outfly the big modern stuff nothwithstanding the horsepower advantage of the big iron.

As a result any Ted Fancher era design is of modest size for the power plant...about 660 square inches max...has a large tail and flies even in ideal conditions with a CG at 25%MAC or even a touch further aft. The 25% location puts the CG right near the aerodynamic center of the wing where the negative pitching moments that result from producing lift and deflecting the flaps to do so act. Having these aerodynamic locations close together reduces the tendency of the airplane to want to open up the corners or loops when accelerated by the wind.

On the surface such a ship might appear to be quick on the trigger and perhaps a little squirrely in maneuvers. This isn't true for a couple of reasons.

First of all the large volume tail allows the CG to be in that location while still maintaining a large static margin (distance between the CG and the neutral point of the ship, a location whereat the acft would become unstable if the CG were moved that far aft).

Secondly, modern large dimension, slow ratio control systems plus properly configured adjustable handles (such as my newly available Precision Pro hard point handles) allow the pilot to refine acft response to his personal preference. Such accomodations are essentially ubiquitous in modern stunt circles.

A ship designed and trimmed in this manner will require little trim change to operate in extremely difficult conditions. A similar design which hasn't been so trimmed could find it impossible to complete patterns in air like Muncie this year because the increased G loads as the airplane winds up in the wind acts to open up the corners and it is altogether possible to run out of elevator authority as the airplane winds up if extreme mistrim or winds are involved.

Another important consideration for wind design is the use of a power train that resists wind up to the greatest degree possible. Both the modern tuned pipe systems and the four strokes can be tuned to do so. The pipe through judicious selection of pipe length to stifle maximum RPM coupled with a low pitch prop and the four stroke by virtue of its valve train design which limits RPM. Both systems are tuned to operate on the back side of their torque curve which is also helpful in limiting their willingness to be driven to higher RPMS thus allowing the prop to essentially hold back increases in airspeed rather than driving that speed.

Several people have discussed the biasing of maneuver to allow the wind to help control wind up. Up to a certain level this is certainly true and I'm one of the strongest proponents of maneuver biasing for the reasons suggested.

However, I disagree with the use of bias in conditions as extreme as we encountered throughout the day in Muncie. The reason is simple, despite our desire to simply survive under such conditions we must still strive to perform the tricks as described to the best of our ability. In very strong winds biasing into the teeth of them for, for instance, the insides loops can make it very difficult to make them both round and concentric (in the same place). The wind will try to push each maneuver back toward directly downwind and it becomes necessary to constantly apply corrections to get back to square one. The resulting maneuver can become mishapen as a result and cost a lot of points.

In such strong winds I advocate only a very slight bias...just enough to insure you aren't starting prior to downwind which could kill the maneuver entirely. The airplane will wind up (as Len has commented several times regarding my flights) but with proper attention to trim and powertrain this will not become uncontrollable. If, on the other hand, you've got a nose heavy ship and a six pitch prop on a 4-2-4 schnerle you could be in for a very exciting ride!

More later.

Ted

LNeumann · Jul 24, 2003 03:24 PM

#16 source

>Several people have discussed the biasing of maneuver to
>allow the wind to help control wind up. Up to a certain
>level this is certainly true and I'm one of the strongest
>proponents of maneuver biasing for the reasons suggested.
>
>However, I disagree with the use of bias in conditions as
>extreme as we encountered throughout the day in Muncie.(snip)
>
>In such strong winds I advocate only a very slight
>bias...just enough to insure you aren't starting prior to
>downwind which could kill the maneuver entirely. The
>airplane will wind up (snip)
>
>More later.
>
>Ted

Ted, it seemed to me that David did bias his loops. Quite a bit, in fact. More than simply placing them where the left and right loop of the horizontal eight are located. You, on the other hand, did not. Just an intersting observation because you are flying pretty much the same airplane (although his is lighter and you have some prop, set-up differences.) It did appear that he experienced less problems in this particular portion of the pattern, and I don't recall seeing that his loops appeared any less round (which may, again, be experience at the handle). Again, I am just making an observation that may not be valid for all.

Also, I think both of you were flying pipe pressure which a lot of people aren't. If nothing else, this should negate the effect of wind on the air inlet of the tank. On the other hand, Matt has his vented to the air, but has accidently come across something that may work as well. In his last three planes he has had the air inlet for the tank in an air scoop at the top of the nose right behind the prop. Although done for aesthetic reasons to begin with, this has the effect of shielding the vent tube from side winds and puts it right in the prop blast which pretty much keeps inlet pressure level at all times.

On another line, and a question which you may well intend to answer, how do you see side area affecting the plane in the wind? For years we have talked about larger side areas which help in the overheads. But it may have a negative effect when flying in higher winds. I remember Bob Gieseke saying, after experiencing his difficulties and then watching Konstantine, that he may be designing his next airplane with less side area.

Also, another question that several people were asking. We can increase speed which will help in the overheads, but may hurt the lower portion of the pattern due to increased tendency to whip up. Or we can go to lower pitch props (or whatever) to decrease the tendency to whip up in the lower portion of the pattern, but at the expense of needed speed later in the overheads. Is it more important to get the better points early in the hopes that they will carry over with the judges as they score the later portion of the pattern? Or is it more important to get that speed in the later portion where it is needed at the expense of possibly more whip up and greater difficulties in the lower portion of the pattern? (Not being able to complete the pattern is certainly not going to help us in the end.)

Leonard Neumann

Larry Cunningham · Jul 24, 2003 03:53 PM

#17 source
OK, guys.

Time for a device to enable you to fly in the strongest winds. It throttles the motor up as line tension decreases and down as it increases.

Airspeed is not a good measure, but line tension is..

(Does anyone buy this?)

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"My phone number is 17. We got one of the early ones."

Howard Rush · Jul 24, 2003 09:33 PM

#21 source
Larry, I want to watch you try this. Be sure to use plenty of gain. I wonder how the throttle would interact with tip weight.

Larry Cunningham · Jul 24, 2003 11:14 PM

#23 source
Why, Howard.

You're trying to get me to build an OSCILLATOR, aren't you?

I believe the mass involved will affect the frequency.

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"Someday I want to be rich. Some people get so rich they lose all respect for humanity. That's how rich I want to be." -Rita Rudner

Igor Burger · Jul 25, 2003 03:48 AM

#24 source
Larry, we (FAI) have disqualified such devices. But I know about several tries of such a device in past. I mean R/C carb coupled to spring mounted bellcrank or pure weight. I already posted some pictures from my model in past. They both work well against any speedup in wind and they can keep also speed overhead and so. Also oscillating is not any problem. The real problem is, that constant speed TO THE INERTIA is really not any good solution. It works well in calm. It gently adds power uphill, it brakes downhill, you have always plenty line tension overhead even you fly very slow. Problems come in wind. Problematic points are downwind segments. The model accelerates and device limits power. So you come to figure and you see your engine does not have enough power. If I compare both devices, then the weight against the spring is better than lines against the spring, because it better limits ill inputs from handle movement as you fly pattern.

I think if there is what to regulate, then it is constant RPM and thus (almost)constant speed in relation to the AIR around. The implementation can be done easily by single chip computer with one R/C nanoservo and piezo rpm reader. Clever program inside can also implement small positive feedback to the loop, so it can also make little “acceleration uphill”, or it can shut off after pattern, or retract landing gears automatically, or synchronize more engines (do you hear bombers? ) … but FAI does not allow it

igor

ferocious · Jul 25, 2003 11:01 AM

#27 source
if your throttle was controlled by line tension it would be controlled via the flying lines and should be legal under FAI rules. It would be directly operated by the lines.

SteveD · Jul 26, 2003 07:37 PM

#35 source
Just wait a bit someone will attach these above mentioned idaes to an electric powered stunter!

The best time to fly is when you have fuel and a plane. SteveD

Jim Pollock · Jul 24, 2003 06:13 PM

#18 source
Len, Ted

I lower my prop pitch to increase RPM closer to the engines maximum power and work nearer the back side of the power curve. The increased lap speed and shorter lines are for penetration back into the wind in manuvers like the hourglass, overheads, verticals and fourleaf. Not so much for 15-20 MPH winds but higher winds like was being experieced on Friday's top 20 day.
Am I anywhere near being on track??? Also, again what's the best way to keep the plane away from the ground on the second (outside) loop of the four leaf clover???

Thanks, again guys!

Jim Pollock

godzilla · Jul 25, 2003 12:56 PM

#28 source
>On another line, and a question which you may well intend to
>answer, how do you see side area affecting the plane in the
>wind? For years we have talked about larger side areas
>which help in the overheads. But it may have a negative
>effect when flying in higher winds. I remember Bob Gieseke
>saying, after experiencing his difficulties and then
>watching Konstantine, that he may be designing his next
>airplane with less side area.

This is one thing I noticed.

Ted and David's planes have very "needle like" appearances but handle all of the conditions very well. This MAY be a factor to figure into their ability to handle the Muncie conditions (from good to bad) with few changes. They also fly at very reasonable speeds, not slow by any means, but very reasonable, so the premium on power is reduced somewhat over flying very slowly. The diameter of their propellors also appears to be less than they are certainly capable of throwing with the engine runs they have and more premium is put on loading the airframe.

Could just be them though....

Flying slowly requires more side area (I think) but could come back and bite you in the butt later. I think this is one of those "more than one way to skin a cat" type things.

For what it's worth I like the way my plane looks, as it is based on a Saturn type look, but I say that configuration is the absolute worst in the wind. By this I mean a straight fuselage with a huge rudder just weather vanes way too much and will always be soft on the right side of the downwind area. I frankly don't see how Konstantine's airplane would not be the same. There is one advantage however as the tail is blown toward you upwind which can help in the upwind manuever entries.

I don't see how side area in front of the wing could be a bad thing except straight upwind.

In fact, I think that balanced side area may be the least understood, least talked about, and least appreciated aspects to stunt designs. I think a completely balanced side area fore and aft could drastically increase the ability of a plane to consistently fly in the hard winds. We talk percentage tail, tail moments, flaps, but never discuss percentage side area aft of the CG. Why?

The City Smasher

iroquois · Jul 24, 2003 08:48 PM

#19 source
Don't change anything, just enjoy. 15 - 20 mph is a normal summers day in the UK. I would have more difficulty flying if it was 10 mph or less, but still wouldn't change anything. We frequently fly contests in 30 mph or more and I love it. If you can stand up you can fly.

Howard Rush · Jul 24, 2003 09:28 PM

#20 source
Blimey.

Jim T. · Jul 24, 2003 09:57 PM

#22 source
I recall George Aldrich talking about having trouble standing up in the wind at a British nats, with stunt going on as though it were calm. I just found a picture of Frank Zaic at a British contest. he is leaning forward into the wind at about 20 degrees off vertical. (As the AMA rulebook might say, "He was at 70 degrees elevation.")

From what I have read in the Britsh mags, Dave's comments sound pretty reasonable.

Jim Thomerson

Iskandar Taib · Jul 25, 2003 04:39 AM

#26 source
You know, I was thinking about a throttle connected to a Bill Maywald type double bellcrank (with a hefty return spring) just the other night. I wonder how well it'd work.

This whole thread's been an eye opener to this Combat flier. In Combat, wind isn't such a big deal in Fast, but it can be a problem with Speed Limit and especially 1/2-A. I never thought about slowing DOWN the plane at all.. in our case, we want to fly as fast as possible (or as fast as the rules allow), because we want to be able to fly maneuvers upwind. Windup only makes things more exciting - especially in Speed Limit, where you suddenly find both planes going 20 mph faster in downwind maneuvers..

As for side area.. before Slow Combat died out altogether, Pat and Mike Willcox were flying airplanes with huge (about 4x6 inch) vertical stabilizers made out of 1/16" plywood, glued to the boom. They'd sometimes get knocked off in an inverted landing or a crash (or taken out by the opponent), but the point was that upwind, they'd yaw the airplane out, and downwind, they'd yaw the airplane in, helping to even out line tension in heavy winds. It worked really well, from what I saw. Didn't see anyone else doing it, though.

Igor Burger · Jul 25, 2003 04:18 AM

#25 source
Dave,

I also live in open area and strong wind is very often. We fly till FAI limit 12m/s (~25mph) not more. I really think that well trimmed model is best way to fly also in wind.

However, I found that the tip weight is very critical. Little less than optimal damages all, little more tan optimal is better, but makes problems in intersections on round figures like in vertical eight – the model can lost all line tension after first intersection when the model is heading against the wind and like to fall down because of opposite roll from previouse loop.

BUT!!!! There is sweet point with far more tip weight than useful for calm condition. If you add ~5g or so, you get back all line tension overhead but the model still does not roll in corners because of strong wind tightening lines downwind. This helped us to survive in WC in Kiev 98'. We had calm condition one month before WC. Without any day of wind. We arrived to windy and turbulent Kiev and models did not fly vertical eights. The succesfull solution without several practice flights was 5g tip weight to "kill" all difficulties. It is dirty solution, but works

igor

Noi Zunim · Jul 25, 2003 03:51 PM

Rogi Rugreb#29 source
Long time no see, you smart, slick, sneaky, slimy, silly slovak!

How are you doin'?

I might "steal" your trim on my next ship, white base color with some red blue and maybe yellow "little things"

Or should I just use checkers? I know you love'em...(Noi Zunim runs for his life...)

Bless ya,

Ion:+

Igor Burger · Jul 25, 2003 04:40 PM

RE: Rogi Rugreb#30 source
Do you want Corel Draw file ? It includes also masking

Ted Fancher · Jul 26, 2003 12:23 AM

#31 source
More stuff on wind.

One last item re wind trim and then some thoughts that go hand in hand with it re power trains.

It must be a given that from time to time under adverse conditions your airplane is going to be free flighting for periods of time ranging from instantaneous to a few seconds or more. This is scary (it should be since you aint' in control for that period of time) but isn't necessarily a guaranteed disaster. It is something that can be prepared for and (with a little bit of luck)is something you can plan to survive.

This state of trim might be termed "hands off stable". Another way of explaining it is that if the ship is momentarily blown in on the lines it will continue to fly more or less in a straight line until mother nature or fast feet brings it back on line. To do this it must be very stable in the pitch and roll axes and in the yaw axis have a tendency to yaw away from the pilot.

This isn't rocket science stuff. All it means is that the wings are level and will stay that way (roll stability) and that it wants to fly more or less straight and level (isn't unstable in the pitch axis). This is pretty much what we should be trimming for for ideal conditions. When we get lazy and live with a slightly banked condition because we've got lots of line tension we put ourselves in the position of losing tension in bad conditions and the problem increasing if the line tension should go to zero.

Bottom line, be conscientious in trimming your ship in roll and pitch.

This is incredibly important in a few places in the pattern. Thankfully, the vast majority of the things we're judged on take place on the bottom half of the downwind side of the circle. If we've trimmed the airplane correctly (the CG and tail volume business I talked about earlier) we should be able to do all those tricks with nothing much more required than a lot more pilot agility to deal with the ever changing speeds as we whip back and forth through directly downwind.

As soon as we start flying above forty five degrees things get a lot more dicey and (with the exception of those who crash upwind in level flight ) the potential for disaster increases dramatically. The vertical eights, hourglass and overhead eights are truly difficult and require thought, preparation and keen attention to the elements while being performed.

Let's talk about power train adjustments (remember, I'm talking Muncie top twenty 2003 weather, not your average windy day at the local flying site).

First of all, we must always remember that there are fifteen maneuvers we get scores for plus a very important 25 pattern points that get added to our score if we merely complete them all as described withing eight minutes. THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION, SO REREAD THAT LAST SENTENCE BEFORE PROCEDING.

The most important task for us on this horrible day for flying is to complete all the required inside and outside turns in the proper sequence and in recognizable enough fashion to convince the judges we "flew the pattern".

The second most important task is to do the greatest number of those tricks as well as possible...even if what it takes to do so means one or a few of the others will suffer as a result. Do the math. There are three and a half maneuvers that become very difficult to do well in such conditions; the vertical eights, the hourglass, the overhead eights and the top halves of the four leaf clover.

Now, we have some choices to make. We could retrim our ship to do a better job of doing those three and half maneuvers. More pitch, more revs, faster laps etc. etc. We can bully our way throught them if that's what we want to do.

Unfortunately, all of the things we'd do to make those three and a half maneuvers "slightly" better will result in making eleven of the remaining thirteen maneuvers more difficult to do well (take off and landing being the last two). Every trick performed below 45 degrees and downwind is going to be more demanding by virtue of the whip up that comes with high winds.

Here's where Jim Pollock hit the nail on the head in his comments.

I agree with Jim and believe it is valuable to go to a lower pitch prop under such conditions...at the nats I went from a 12.5 X 4.1 pitch Brian Eather three blade flat back prop to one of the same diameter but 3.75" pitch, about a 10% reduction in pitch.

To compensate for the reduced pitch I increased the launch RPM by about 300 or so which did three things. It brought the engine higher on the horsepower curve and further down the torque curve and brought it closer to the maximum RPM for the pipe length.

Thus, I had greater horsepower at roughly similar airspeeds (actually the lap times were very slightly less than with the higher pitch prop), I was deeper into the descending torque curve so that wind up reduced the torque more thus tending to restrict the wind driven RPM increase and reducing wind up, and I was closer to the limiting RPM of the pipe which further tended to restrict RPM.

It is important to note that in winds like this the aerodynamic reality can be such that the wind driven airplane speed is "driving" the prop rather than vice versa. Thus the prop can actually serve as a brake to even greater airspeed increases.

Now, the machine is a significantly different animal from what it was with the higher pitch prop. This allows a slightly different flight profile.

First, all of the eleven downwind sub 45 degree maneuvers become more controlled and we can fly them with more or less good precision. I'm not trying to kid you. They're still tough but they aren't as tough as they would have been with the higher pitch prop and the richer, higher on the torque curve, lower RPM setting.

The other thing we've accomplished is giving ourselves a chance to "complete" the difficult three and half maneuvers with some degree of confidence. The operative word is "complete". Remember, task number one is to complete all the tricks. Task number two is to do the maximum number as well as we can if we want to score well!

We've improved our chances on these maneuvers by giving ourselves more horsepower and by having a well trimmed airplane that can fly the maneuvers even with a modest or little or no tension should that become required. By keepint our airspeed roughly the same we've retained as much inertia as possible and by having the ship straight and properly trimmed for pitch it is less likely to wander off on its own should tension be a problem.

How do we fly these three maneuvers? Are there some trick to doing so? Yeah, a few. No magic but methods to improve our chances.

In the vertical eights remember that what the judges are looking for is the flight path of the airplane, not the body angle. With the wind blowing strongly at our back it is a fact that the airplane's path will stop rising "before" the fuselage is horizontal. We "must" start into the outside loop slightly before reaching horizontal or, by definition, the ship will be descending...plus, you've just made it ##### near impossible to get it going back uphill again!

If you do start it into the outside a bit before horizontal you'll actually get a bit of a boost from the wind helping it around the top. Coming downhill the opposite is equally true. The flight path will still be descending even when the fuse is horizontal (the wind blowing it "down"). Thus it is important to feed in enough down control from the top of the maneuver to allow the ship to get slightly beyond horizontal before tucking under on the second inside. Again, proper pitch trim makes this possible. If you've ignored the advice to have an aft CG you likely won't have enough down control to accomplish this task and the very ugly "bail out" either prematurely inside or late outside results.

The hour glass is a sucker hole for the greedy. Be honest about your ability to actually put corners on the top and still complete the maneuver. If you aint' sure you can do it make a nice round top and put a "blip" or two where the corners were supposed to be. Remember, completing this maneuver is the goal. It ain't going to be pretty no matter what you do and you can blow it and lose points for both the maneuver and the pattern. Be honest and safe. If you play it safe up top you can probably put a nice clean corner on the bottom which might look so much better than the competition that they'll forget about the soft top...remember, the judges are human and have some empathy for what you're going through. Give 'em some good stuff when you can and it'll pay dividends.

The overhead is probably the scariest maneuver in such conditions. Just remember, if you've been making it through upwind in level flight you should be able to do so overhead. The secret is energy retention. You don't want to do anything that will rob what little ground speed you've got (line tension is directly proportional to how fast you are going relative to the ground...not the acft's speed through the air mass which might be whizzing by at 25 or 30K!)

Be sure to enter slightly before you are directly upwind. The wind will thus add energy to the climb and you'll actually get to the top of the circle at a faster speed than that at which you entered it. Try hard to enter the eight no sooner than the top of the circle (most of us do the overhead in front of us which is slightly into the wind...not a good plan for difficult conditions like this). Make NO abrupt control inputs. Fly the airplane smoothly through the entire maneuver and take whatever amount of the circle is required to do so. Remember...completion of the maneuver is the goal. This is where your precise roll trim will pay dividends. If a wing wants to fly high, this is when it will happen and when it will cause you to lose control. This is also a place where too little tip weight might cause you trouble so be keen in your trim in that area as well. I believe it was Igor who suggested a tiny bit more tip weight in such conditions can be helpful. I don't disagree. Remember though, he spoke of five grams...that's slightly less than a quarter oz! Don't go crazy here.

Generally speaking, if you can complete the first loop of the clover you can complete the whole thing...with, maybe, a fudged exit to avoid flying directly into a wind that is beyond your ships capabilities. Remember, completion of the correct number of insides and outsides is our goal. Be realistic about what you've learned about your ship, the powertrain and the conditions at the moment. If you have to start the first loop a little low...or a little more downwind...or dive into it...whatever, do it, complete the first loop and go from there.

A trick I use is to both step back a step and draw my arm and hand toward me when entering that first loop. Both of these actions input energy to the airplane at the same time they "shorten" the distance between you and the ship thus keeping it on the end of the lines.

Finally, if you have to do so, fly the four loops of the clover more or less superimposed on one another thus keeping the entire maneuver as down wind as possible. It might not be pretty but it will be a complete maneuver and will get you some points...plus preserve the pattern points.

Finally, back to the beginning. All of this is worthless if you can't get the airplane safely in the air. Take offs in these conditions are often the undoing of many a potential winner...including yours truly on more than one occasion.

I (we've...David, Brett and I) have tried just about every conceivable point of release for takeoffs in such conditions. I'm reasonably convinced that the best location for today's high powered ship is slightly forward of directly downwind. These ships accelerate quickly enough that flying speed is attained more or less instantly (and thus pitch control to avoid whacking props on hard surfaces) and the achieve adequate ground speed to maintain line tension before reaching upwind. Be judicious in your attempts to get a nice long take-off roll. If it's windy and gusty simply give neutral elevator, let it pop off the ground and then do your best to manage a nice smooth climb. Either up or down elevator can be a disaster. Such take-off are why Randy Smith learned the profitability of selling carbon fibre cowling protectors (called Bolly props by some) to hot shot stunt flyers during windy conditions in Lubbock, TX a number of years ago.

Landing. This is the number one reason why I continue to advocate and use hard tanks. In conditions like this I want to control where the engine quits. Both of my landings on this miserable day were exceptionally good and control of the engine shutoff is the reason.

With a hard tank you can learn when your engine is about to quit and can then use that knowledge to shut it off with a loop. A loop done at 30 to 45 degrees just past down wind will stop the engine with the airplane moving with good speed and control back into the wind. A rapid but smooth descent puts the ship at touchdown right at the downwind quarter of the circle. A high speed controlled touchdown results and allows the use of down elevator to stick the ship to the ground and keep it there as it rolls back into the wind.

Here's a secret. I put small "O" rings between my wheels and the keepers and snug the wheel up so it takes some effort to turn them. These act as brakes and when you feed down elevator into the ship on roll out you can actually stop it fairly quickly and before it comes around into the wind and regains flying airspeed.

At long last. This screed has not been a suggestion that everyone fly in all conditions. I fully respect the decisions of fellow competitors and, quite frankly, I do have limits as well. When the day comes (and it will) that I'm too uncomfortable to risk my equipment and somebody is comfortable doing so and picks up the gold at the end of the day, I'll be the first to shake his hand and say well done. This is a competition. It's not life and death. We can always replace equipment. In the final analysis we risk our stuff every time we put it in the air. The beginner does so when conditions are perfect. The intermediate can handle a bit more and the advanced flyer a bit more than that.

When you get to Expert the flyers should know two things for sure...What they can handle and what they can't. When the conditions get tough the Experts weigh that knowledge against what Mother Nature is offering and make the choice to fly or not to fly. At the end of the day somebody will likely do so better than the others and will take home the trophy...pretty much like every other day. That's the way it works!

Ted

Crist_Rigotti · Jul 26, 2003 11:10 AM

#32 source
LAST EDITED ON Jul-26-03 AT 11:10 AM (CDT)
 
Ted,
Your 2 posts have been copied into MS WORD and printed out for my flight box and folder. I will be woking on these things. Thank you for your detailed descriptions of what you did that day and WHY. This is one of those CLASSIC posts that everybody should copy and keep!

Crist Rigotti
"A driver trying to be a pilot"

Ted Fancher · Jul 26, 2003 05:48 PM

#33 source
>Ted,
>Your 2 posts have been copied into MS WORD and printed out
>for my flight box and folder. I will be woking on these
>things. Thank you for your detailed descriptions of what
>you did that day and WHY. This is one of those CLASSIC
>posts that everybody should copy and keep!
>
>Crist Rigotti
>"A driver trying to be a pilot"

Thanks, Crist. I'm afraid it probably put everyone to sleep.

Ted

Jim Pollock · Jul 26, 2003 06:26 PM

#34 source
Ted,

No I don't think it put anyone to sleep. such a detailed description of what you need to do in high wind is just what the doctor ordered. Thanks for the complement regarding getting the higher horspower from our engines with the lower pitch prop and higher RPM's. I suppose that I am beginning to learn more about our piped model power systems. Of course, that's due in no small part to all the words of extreme model wisdom that you share with us here on this forum.
Thank you for your most gracious efforts to enlighten us.


Jim Pollock

Igor Burger · Jul 27, 2003 01:02 PM

#36 source
>>>I believe it was Igor who suggested a tiny bit more tip weight in such conditions can be helpful. I don't disagree. Remember though, he spoke of five grams...that's slightly less than a quarter oz! Don't go crazy here.<<<

Sorry if someone understood my note as a “proper way to do it”. I really mean such an overkilling “crazy” change only if there is no chance to try it seriously.

------------------------------------------------

But Ted, if I read your note I am missing one key idea. You wrote you go for lower pitch to gain more power on backside of power curve. Well … it is all clear, but tell me, why don’t you do it also in good conditions?

igor

Ted Fancher · Jul 28, 2003 12:17 AM

#37 source
>>>>I believe it was Igor who suggested a tiny bit more tip weight in such conditions can be helpful. I don't disagree. Remember though, he spoke of five grams...that's slightly less than a quarter oz! Don't go crazy here.<<<
>
>Sorry if someone understood my note as a “proper way to do
>it”. I really mean such an overkilling “crazy” change only
>if there is no chance to try it seriously.
>
>------------------------------------------------
>
>But Ted, if I read your note I am missing one key idea. You
>wrote you go for lower pitch to gain more power on backside
>of power curve. Well … it is all clear, but tell me, why
>don’t you do it also in good conditions?
>
>igor


Igor,

Because it is all a balancing game, Igor. I don't really care what should work theoretically. I want something that will allow me to fly the best I can under a given set of conditions. Wind is a source of energy for a tethered aerodynamic vehicle. Sometimes its energy is added to the acft and sometimes it takes away from it. The stunt ship has to deal with both situations.

Give me enough wind and I can do a lot of the pattern with no engine at all. On the other hand, a zero pitch prop is probably not going to do you a lot of good in dead calm air (which I dislike almost as much as I dislike high winds) but could conceivably be adequate and even desirable for really severe winds (assuming you don't want to fly on the upwind side of the circle!)

In the really tough winds the breaking action of the prop becomes much more valuable than it might be under ideal conditions. Under dead calm air the engine is the only source of energy you've got...and it had better be sucking rather than blowing! Whatever the conditions, you've got to use the energy sources you have available. Sometimes you have to maximize them and sometimes you have to control them.

For what it's worth I've been experimenting since the nats using even lower pitch props, higher revs, a shorter pipe and am now considering lowering the compression ratio. When you add in the other variables, such as nitro content, venturi size, prop diameter, density altitude and whatever else you can think of it rapidly becomes obvious to the pragmatist (as opposed to the theorist) that the number of variables quickly exceed our ability to define--let alone produce--the "perfect" combination. By the way, so far none of the attempts to "improve" the good air performance by adapting the changes that were successful in bad air have proven to be worthwhile for this airplane.

I've been flying the same airplane pretty successfully since 1994 and it has flown competitively in a remarkable variety of trim states. None of them have been perfect. All of them have been pretty darn good. I suspect that by our Team Trials I will have refined the power train to allow me to successfully fly the ship well with lower pitch. If so, I expect it to be superior to what I had to fly on Top Five day...which was retaining the low pitch prop in the expectation that the winds predicted would develop during the fly-off. It didn't happen and the result is obvious on the scoreboard.

You might well ask why.

Because, to use the lower pitch prop on the windy day I could continue to operate the engine at roughly the same mixture it had been tuned for in better air. The engine reacted well, and stayed largely in a four stroke due to the reduced load which helped control speed as desired.

The problem on Saturday was the "other" variables I mentioned a couple paragraphs back. With this lower pitch prop the mixture setting which was happy in the wind was inadequate to produce the lap times necessitated by the reduced wind speed. I.e., The energy I derived from the winds was missing and I needed the engine to "suck" a little more because of that loss of energy.

Unfortunately, the other variables of the power train set up wouldn't allow the engine to run at those revs without undesirable "bursts" of power when the engine would break from four stroke to two stroke. When it did so the power boost was significant enough to cause the ship to accelerate excessively and make smooth exits from corners difficult.

The solution would have required significant numbers of test flights to refine. A shorter pipe, richer mixture at higher revs and, I'm now discovering, likely a bit lower compression ratio. The time and space required to do this testing simply didn't exist and I rolled the dice and made a decision. I kept my successful wind set-up in place and hoped for the wind to come up during the fly-off.

It might be fun to note another factor that entered into the ultimate outcome. Because of my flight order draw for the three Final rounds...as I recall, number two first round, number four and number one...and because of my personal psyche which makes me not respond well to mental pressure, I chose to fly all three rounds without ever checking the scoreboard to see how I was doing. I just decided to fly each flight the best I could and then go see how things were working out.

I knew the first couple of flights were decent and thought I was probably doing pretty well. This was re-inforced when David started futzing with his landing gear location after the second round obviously in search of another point or two the last round because he'd been having some trouble all week with poor take-offs and mediocre landings.

My final flight was modest, at best, and when I went to check the scoreboard after the flight I pretty much knew what was going to happen. I lead David by 0.6 points after the first two rounds. The history of the flyoffs is that scores creep slowly higher and that unless you've got a pretty solid lead going into the last round you could be in jeopardy unless you put in a solid flight. I hadn't and pretty much expected what happend after David finished his last flight.

What this has to do with the current discussion is that, had I taken the time to check how close the scores were I would almost certainly have abandoned my strategy of sticking with the windy weather set-up. Because of the light air I had been flying nice but unspectacular maneuvers because the bite which would allow more aggressive cornering simply wasn't available with the lower pitch prop and the engine wouldn't respond to simply leaning it out for greater lap times without getting jumpy in corners.

What I would almost certainly have done for the last flight was to simply bolt on the 4.1 pitch prop which, at the same mixture setting would have produced a faster lap time, more tension and allowed more aggressive cornering...plus it would have felt solider and less apt to overturn without the quarter oz of added tailweight that was part of the wind trim. The chances for a significantly more impressive pattern would have been measurably increased at the same time that the possiblity of significant overturn errors (as I did in my outside squares) would have been reduced.

Finally, I must take exception to the suggestion that there is one ultimate state of trim for a given airplane. A very good airplane won't require as much alteration as a less capable design, but it is likely to require some adjustment for severe changes in conditions nonetheless. Brett's Infinite is probably the best flying airplane I've ever flown and he doesn't have to change very much under ordinary conditions. Nonetheless, to achieve the best performance under a given set of conditions he is never reluctant to make the changes necessary to maximize performance to the best of his ability.

The Final Edition is a good airplane, not a great one. The only reason it has had such a sterling pedigree over the years is that I've flown and trimmed and changed and learned about its idiosyncrasies and have recognized its imperfections. It has reached its peak several times over the years...each time in a little different state of trim.

Do I need a new airplane? You bet! Is it likely to happen in this lifetime? I hope so.

Ted

Igor Burger · Jul 29, 2003 07:43 AM

#41 source
I understand Ted, you just got better run with the 4” prop in calm. Using the same prop for calm and wind will probably need more changes than just change the prop (pipe length ventury size, compression ratio ...)

But I found another thing important. You wrote you move CG back. This is what makes sense to me from another point of view. I think you want easier turn, as I understand. But I have another experience. I do not trim “for wind” I trim “for calm”, because windy condition is that “ususal” and we need to do something for calm. I found that unlike windy condition I must move leadouts little aft to get somewhat “patient” fly. It can be opposite from calm to wind. It would need to move leadouts to front. Do not you think that is you put some lead to tail (it is in reality moving leadouts front) then you get not only easier cornering, but also somewhat “cleaner” cornering?

This is I think very practical. Theoretically I see the reason in different angle of upcoming wind on downwind side where we fly maneuvers. It yaws nose in and so leadouuts needs to be moved forward to match it. But there are limits for doing so, just because if the model goes out of tension, it tends to make thing even worse and lines can turn the nose toward center of circle. The better solution can be adjusting rudder. … ???
igor

Ted Fancher · Jul 30, 2003 05:25 PM

#44 source
LAST EDITED ON Jul-30-03 AT 05:26 PM (CDT)
 
>
>But I found another thing important. You wrote you move CG
>back. This is what makes sense to me from another point of
>view. I think you want easier turn, as I understand. But I
>have another experience. I do not trim “for wind” I trim
>“for calm”, because windy condition is that “ususal” and we
>need to do something for calm. I found that unlike windy
>condition I must move leadouts little aft to get somewhat
>“patient” fly. It can be opposite from calm to wind. It
>would need to move leadouts to front. Do not you think that
>is you put some lead to tail (it is in reality moving
>leadouts front) then you get not only easier cornering, but
>also somewhat “cleaner” cornering?
>

>igor

Igor,

Thanks for reminding me. I noted the other day while reviewing this thread that I made little note of this most important aspect of adapting to particularly difficult winds, i.e. a little tail weight!

yeah, you're right. Most of us, myself included, set our equipment up for more or less ideal conditions with (as I've mentioned before) a significant nod toward design considerations that recognize the need to be able to fly well in bad air as well.

One of the automatic changes I make when truly windy conditions come up is to add a small amount of lead to the tail via some stick-on weight. For no particular reason I've settled on 1/4 oz. Might not sound like much but when the CG is already fairly far aft as are all of mine it has a significant impact on response rate and control forces required.

The rationale behind doing so relates to control response and required deflection. When the acft accelerates in the wind the g forces developed in our pitch maneuvers increases...assuming we still fly the same radius in the same maneuvers. When G. force increase, lift required increases, flap deflection increases and negative pitching moments from the more cambered wing section increases. In addition, more elevator deflection is required to both maintain the radius and to provide greater flap deflection.

(Someone, I'm sure, will note that the increase in speed by itself will result in more lift due simply to the fact that lift increases as the square of speed. Someone will be right but experience leads me to believe that at the very least greater elevator deflection is required and, by mechanical reality, more flap deflection results. It's kind of a chicken or the egg issue.)

The reality will be that it will take more effort to turn the acft and if nothing is done to mitigate that increase it is likely that a given corner is going to take more time...and, therefore, space...to accomplish.

By moving the CG aft a small amount all the factors involved in making the corner are reduced a certain amount. Less deflection required ergo less negative pitching moment ergo less deflection, etc. Sort of like a dog chasing its tail.

Bottom line, a little tail weight is a good thing under these conditions.

A thought regarding what I'm hoping to hear from Paul re Beringer's design. The thing that jumps out at everyone is the tiny size of the flaps, their modest movement and the fact that they are pretty much not involved in the flight characteristics of the design. I'm betting that...like flapless designs such as my DOCTOR...the elimination of the pitching moment from the flaps is a big consideration for making the Beringer design fly well in the wind with little or no trim change required.

We shall see.

Ted

Ted Fancher · Jul 30, 2003 05:54 PM

#45 source
A couple of random thoughts to finish off my input to this thread.

One of the ongoing debates since the Wright Bros first flew is the subject of upwind and downwind turns and whether the airplane can tell the difference. You know, the old saw about the airplane flying through the air mass and not knowing whether that mass is moving or just sitting there. It's a great subject for debate and conjecture and includes things like inertia and groundspeed versus airspeed and so forth.

None of which, of course, has a thing to do with us since we tie our ships to the Earth via the control lines and the coefficient of friction between the ground and our sneakers. Just a not very funny way of saying that our stunters very much care whether our pitching maneuvers are done into the wind or away from it.

There is, thus, a very distinct dividing line at a point directly downwind on either side of which the response of the acft is going to be different based on how much of the ambient air movement is into, down from or across the flight path of our ship.

Couple of things. When the ambient air movement is cross ways to our flight path, directly up or down wind, the result is pretty clear. It's going to pull harder down wind and less upwind (or even, as Brett and Bob G found out, not at all!). The degree to which this occurs will be affected by the strength of the wind, the amount of side area on the ship and how that side area is distributed. Another subject of a rainy day.

What is of more importance is the recognition of what effects the wind will have on either side of the direct downwind line. For that a quick primer on airspeed, ground speed and inertia is in order.

Airspeed is the speed at which a vehicle supported by the air mass is moving through it. Thus, a vehicle supported by that air mass will have no idea the mass is moving. To the extent that the vehicle can change its position within that mass we can measure at what rate that happens. The rate of movement through the air mass is called airspeed. If a vehicle is flying 50 MPH airspeed to maintain straight and level flight it can do so within that airmass regardless of its heading and regardless of the motion of that airmass across the ground.

That's interesting if you're talking about an untethered acft such as a free flight, RC model or full scale airplane. It's also interesting to note that these acft can have their motion measured another way, with respect to the ground over which they fly. We call that ground speed.

Ergo, if the airmass is moving 25 knots south and the acft is flying south at an airspeed of 50 knots the resultant ground speed is 75 knots. The same airplane going north in the airmass will still have an airspeed of 50K but the ground speed will now be only 25K. A simple concept and the reality for most of aviation.

Control line flight is way, way different. Because we are tethered to the center of the flight circle their is a real and measureable effect regarding the direction of flight to the movement of the airmass. We do fly upwind and downwind and, unlike our untethered brethren, our airspeed varies as a result.

It isn't quite as simple as the addition and subtraction comp in untethered flight, however. Because our ships weight three to four pounds and fly around the tether at significant ground speeds they also have significant and always changing amount of inertia. The mass of the acft will increase as it flies "downwind" and, after passing the direct downwind line, it will gradually dissipate that inertia on the upwind leg. Think about the concept but don't try to plot it out or quantify it from second to second...it'll drive you crazy!

To make a long story short, the result will be that both airspeed and ground speed are constantly changing relative to our state vis a vis the wind, current ground and airspeed and the state of inertia at that point. Now that I think about it, we're darn lucky the things fly at all!

This post is getting too long and I've got an appointment with my Back Quack. I'll pick it up again later with a discussion of the effects of all the above on our tricks.

Ted

Igor Burger · Jul 31, 2003 04:57 AM

#47 source
>>>(Someone, I'm sure, will note that the increase in speed by itself will result in more lift due simply to the fact that lift increases as the square of speed. Someone will be right but experience leads me to believe that at the very least greater elevator deflection is required and, by mechanical reality, more flap deflection results. It's kind of a chicken or the egg issue.)<<<
EXACTLY!!! I almost started to write you about it while reading the paragraph before. It is true that both the centrifugal force out of the corner as well as lift of wing as well of centrifugal force out of the circle (giving line tension) increases as the square of speed. But the only what it says is, that the same model with the same deflection will fly at different speeds the same radius. It does not tell anything about you feeling on handle. The problem is, that if the speed increases, then also lift increases and thus also feedback to the bellcrank increases as the square of speed. So first of all you need more force on handle to do keep the same deflection and also line elongation at that enlarged force makes troubles, because for the same deflection on bellcrank, you need more deflection on handle. So the result is really as you described it.

But I wanted something else. If the relative wind comes to the model from side (down the wind where we fly maneuvers). The AC of wing is not on the same place as is in the calm (little left – like too much tip weight) and also optimal position of leadouts (balanced pull of model to the lines and drag of lines) is also different (more front – like lines are too back). It all depends on model, but I think the result is typically lines are too aft in wind. The little tail weight moves CG aft, and it is like to move leadouts front. And this matches what we often do – we have models trimmed to some average wind at ~8m/s (18mph) and I often move leadouts back for calm condition. This is exactly what I had to do on WC in Sebnitz. We measured wind and we found that unlike strong turbulence, the wind was much less than we expected. I used the “calm” setup and it was what it needed.

igor

Igor Burger · Jul 31, 2003 05:22 AM

#48 source
The limited flap size on Beringer design is big question for me. We definitely need some lift to the corner and if your wing has limited lift coefficient, you need less wing load what makes disadvantage in turbulent air. Just because little more flaps will allow smaller wing and thus better resistance in turbulent air. Jumping up and down is not any exception if I watch those models in wind. So those similar flying abilities in calm and wind cost sensitivity in turbulence. It can look like a good way here where we fly with K factor, so little jumps in level does not cost too much.

Iskandar Taib · Jul 28, 2003 01:37 AM

#38 source
>Here's a secret. I put small "O" rings between my wheels
>and the keepers and snug the wheel up so it takes some
>effort to turn them. These act as brakes and when you feed
>down elevator into the ship on roll out you can actually
>stop it fairly quickly and before it comes around into the
>wind and regains flying airspeed.

Hmmmm..

Do you use tricycle gear? Won't down elevator cause a noseover otherwise?

Jim Pollock · Jul 28, 2003 09:40 AM

#39 source
Isky,

No it won't. If you use up elevator after making a touchdown past directly upwind (while the planes tail points into the wind) the plane WILL nose over in high wind. So you must use down elevator at least until the airplane passes directly downwind in the rollout. I leared that little bit of information at the 99 February meet in St. Louis. Winds were pretty close to those on top 20 day at the nationals.

Jim Pollock

Ion · Jul 28, 2003 10:06 AM

#40 source
I’m no expert on flying with strong wind (or even with the nicest stunt breeze you can dream of) but there are a lot of parrots in Brazil, and they can repeat what you say.

So, let me “play parrot” and repeat Bob Hunt’s words on the subject (like it was said on this forum he’s a world champ, so chances are he knows what the heck he’s talkin’ about...).

Bob (and Bill Werwage, who also ain’t no dummy, at least in my book) got very impressed with Mike Starrett’s performance on a Cleveland contest in 1996, I think, and Mike’s “Eliminator” performed in a fashion that triggered their interest in this design.

The story is (according to Bob), that on that day he noticed a gentleman doin’ some very nice maneuvers with a small, cute little ship.

The weather was nice, but just before the last ... (in Brazil we call it “bateria” – flight?) the wind got really nasty and turbulent.

A lot of guys chose to pass, and Bob figured that “the gentleman doin’ some very nice maneuvers with a small, cute little ship” would do the same. After all, a small ship like his would get tossed around badly with that kind of wind."

To his surprise, Mike did not pass, and flew what Bob describes as the best “rotten wind pattern he ever saw in his life”.

He was editor of FM Magazine at the time, and he helped Mike and Allen Brickhause write an article on the Eliminator (he even inked the plans). It might be interesting to number some of the factors that made it perform so well.

Here are some of ‘em:

1 – It’s a small ship, around 550 sq. Inches.

2 – The power plant is an OS .25 VF (here comes Ion with his darned .25 again!...) with a Nering Carbonmaster pipe, APC 10 X 3 prop launching at 12.000 rpm.

3 – The engine thrust line, the wing centerline and the stab are all on the same axis.

4 – It has a somewhat thick stab (3/8”) for this size of ship. Mike told me that he got the idea from arrows (yeah, the kind them injuns use). The drag on the rear keeps them goin’ straight (of course the feathers also make them spin , or roll, witch, I fear, is not very desirable on a CL stunt ship).
The drag on the rear though, makes sense to me, but please keep in mind, my opinions ain’t worth nuttin’...

5 – Wingspan 52”.
Root rib around 9.5” + 2.5” flap = 12”
Thickness: 2” .
Tip rib round 8.5” T
hickness : 1.8”
These numbers are not 100% precise

6 – It has little sweepback, and the root rib is just some 4mm thicker than the tip rib.

7 – The CG is 3” behind LE and it’s pretty low. The leadouts come out of the wing 1/8” below the airfoil centerline in order to compensate. I don’t know if this helps deal with the wind, but it’s supposed to give you nice takeoffs and landings.

8 – Godzilla wrote : “Ted and David's planes have very *needle like* appearances but handle all of the conditions very well. This MAY be a factor to figure into their ability to handle the Muncie conditions (from good to bad) with few changes”
The Eliminator also has very little side area.
Personally I never felt the need of lots of side area on the overhead eight’s, but again, Ion’s opinion ain’t worth nuttin’...

9 – The lines: 62’ eyelet-to-eyelet 0.012 solids.

10 – 40 – 41 oz. total weight.

11 – Just like Ted’s, a modern large dimension, slow ratio control system is used. 4” Sig belcrank, w/maximum deflection 30 degrees. 1/1 flap-elevator ratio. Mike advised me to use a lot of handle spacing and warned me to take it easy until I got used to it.

12 – The airfoil has some drag, but a lot less than Ted’s Trivial Pursuit. BTW, Ted’s TP and Bené Rodrigues’s “Cheyenne” have the thickest airfoils I’ve ever seen.

13 – Outboard wing 1” shorter than inboard and outboard flap 1” longer than inboard.

On another article on his CL/Stunt column an FM Bob wrote:

"There are a few who have been quietly experimenting with small piped stunters. Bill Werwage started experimenting with the OS.25VF when we first started tuned pipe development back in 1985( ...) He was reminded of the small setup’s potential when Mike Starrett did this thing in Cleveland, and promptly resurrected the experiments in earnest.(...) Bill is flying the ship (Perroquet) on 64-foot long .012 solid lines, and is spinning either an APC 10-4 or a wooden (custom modified) 11-3 prop at 11,000 to 11,500 rpm. This combination yields 5.3 second laps with extreme constant speed through maneuvers.

“...(Bill) feels, as I do, that the small piped ship is ideal for local, turbulent field meets.”

In Christ,

Ion

Paul van Dort · Jul 30, 2003 03:29 PM

#42 source
Hi,


Unlikely most approaches, it has been Gilbert Berringers idea to develop a model, that does not need adjustments to cope with varying weather conditions. In fact the Sukhoi and Sportster were the result of developing towards this goal.

I have Gilberts rationale on his designs in a word document that I will gladly sent to whoever is interested.

Just send me your email address.

Kind regards,
Paul

Ted Fancher · Jul 30, 2003 05:06 PM

#43 source
Paul,

I'd love to read it. Please forward to: [email protected]

Thanks.

Ted Fancher

Howard Rush · Jul 30, 2003 10:55 PM

#46 source
Please send it to me, too.

Thank you,

Howard Rush
[email protected]

Igor Burger · Jul 31, 2003 05:27 AM

#49 source
Paul, I think everybody would like to see it, so just put it here.

igor

Paul van Dort · Jul 31, 2003 05:51 AM

#50 source
Igor, I hate to publish stuff that was not written by me.
Doesn't feel right.

Next year Muncie for you?

Igor Burger · Jul 31, 2003 06:14 AM

#51 source
:-) ... my visit in Muncie depends on thicknes of my pocket, I hope so, If nothing else I will go just to look if not fly ... well and If I get visa - it can happen they will tell me they do not like to see me in the states