Al's Designs vs. West Coast

LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-04 AT 02:18 PM (CDT)
 
Preamble: This is in no way an attempt to outline why one method is better than another. This is instead a celebration of two very successful approaches that are opposite ends of the spectrum (at least in my opinion). When I use the term "West Coast" I am referring to the highly successful Trivial Pursuit, Impact, and similar airplanes based on the same type of philosophy. When I say Al's planes, I mean, well.... Al's planes.

The light came on the other day. I have been doing my designs wrong. I have been thinking little and copying much (no harm there really). I have posted in response to Doug's high AR VS, low AR design questions, and some of that really got me thinking. I even designed a new plane based on some of my thoughts.

Basically, you have two opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of successful stunt airplane design, Al Rabe and the "West Coast/Werwage" type designs (maybe a better term would be "everyone else"). Maybe there is another extreme in the Berringer designs, but for the sake of discussion we will assume just these two extremes. I think it is imperative to understand these two extremes before setting out to design a package (including motor, etc).

This is how I see it...

West Coast/Werwage:
1. Large wings.
2. High energy, high lift wings (high AR is common).
3. Low drag, especially in corners.
4. Moderate wing loading.
5. Small flaps or low flap ratios.
6. Small to moderate sized propellers (not max for the engine).
7. Low pitch propellers.
8. Low "boost" minimum 4-2 break.
9. Very regulated power output (pipes and low pitch high RPM).
10. Low to moderately powerful engines for the size of the wing (many designs originally developed for the OS VF 40 or ST 46).
11. AFT CG (25% MAC or more).

Al Rabe:
1. Very, very, small wings.
2. Low to mid energy wing for wing loading.
3. High drag, especially in corners.
5. High wing loading.
6. Very large flaps (in therms of the wing) used at maximum deflection.
7. Mid to high pitch propellers.
8. Large boost or 4-2 break.
9. No piped engines wanted or needed.
10. Very large powerful engines for the size of the wing (.60 displacement is maybe as small as Al will even consider these days).
11. Middle CG (AL says forward, I think I can assume 22% to 23% MAC)

In stunt, something has to control the energy in the plane. The wind will definitely add and subtract energy from the airplane, in effect the airplane is acting just like a kite. In the West Coast setup the engine and prop controls the speed, as the wing has tremendous energy potential and does not need influxes of additional energy. This is why the best low drag, high lift airplanes are using piped engines and very low pitch. The lower the pitch the better, or sometimes the compensations are made with diameter, because once again, no large amount of thrust is required as the wing is very efficient and the flap drag is low. Speed loss in the corner is also very low, and once again very little if any "boost" is required to maintain speed.

If anything, engine braking become paramount over boost, especially in the wind, since any excess of lift manifests itself as more forward speed (I am sure I will hear about that statement).

Al's planes on the other hand rely on airplane drag to control the energy in poor conditions. They also has much less of a tendency to pick additional energy from the wind because of the little extra lift due to the small wing. Al's planes rely heavily on pitch and "boost" from the engine, just the opposite of the low drag stunt planes. The boost is required to compensate for the large drag generated in the corner by the large flaps. Because of airplane drag, engine braking becomes less critical.

I just think it is important to understand the extremes of these design philosophies, and make sure you are not combining elements from both and expecting good results.

>Basically, you have two opposite ends of the spectrum in
>terms of successful stunt airplane design, Al Rabe and the
>"West Coast/Werwage" type designs.

Well, I admire you willingness to tread where angels fear (as this is a topic that is likely to get heated among some - not me, BTW). But what Billy does, and what we (Ted, Dvid, and I) have been doing, is tremendously different. In fact, I would say we are far closer to Al (big fat wing, small airplanes with lots of power and relatively heavy loading) than we are to Billy.

On that note, I bow out to avoid the carnage this is likely to result from this....

> Well, I admire you willingness to tread where angels fear
>(as this is a topic that is likely to get heated among some
>- not me, BTW). But what Billy does, and what we (Ted, Dvid,
>and I) have been doing, is tremendously different. In fact,
>I would say we are far closer to Al (big fat wing, small
>airplanes with lots of power and relatively heavy loading)
>than we are to Billy.

I would, indeed, say that your plane in particular is very close to having a lot of Rabe type philosophy in it. I would still say your Infinite is still very "slippery" in comparison to say a BBQB which has a similar sized wing, and flaps maybe 150% larger than yours.

I really do not think you could put a snarly, non piped PA 65 with a 14" prop on your design and make it work. It simply has too much "boost". You have admitted many times that your airplane works better with almost zero boost.

> On that note, I bow out to avoid the carnage this is
>likely to result from this....

I really, really, really hope that you are kidding here. I simply mean to define a line somewhere in the sand that can be useful when determining the path of future designs. The statements above are only meant to compliment both philosophies which have been very successful for, I feel, opposite reasons. If these statements generate "carnage" then I will simply "bow out" from future discussions of design since they are obviously be "tabu". I hope this is not true.

In fact, I spoke to Al about this and he acknowledged the statements I made but also said that practice with any combination is really the best recipe for success.

I simply hope you are not trying to create "carnage" here by your statements.

\
>I simply hope you are not trying to create "carnage" here by
>your statements.

Absolutely not - in fact it's a very interesting topic to me and I would love to have a reasoned discussion about it. Al is perfectly willing, since we have talked about it in the past. But some people are awfully touchy abou this topic, and I fear that this touchiness will come out at some point. I've gotten my head bit off over it, in fact.

I would ask a question that is a bit of a sidebar to your main tenet, but perhaps valid: where is the extra energy imposed by the wind being collected? From your post it seems like you feel the wing is collecting the energy. I'm not sure how that would work, and I would submit that it would seem to me to be the fuselage side area would be seeing the wind (at least when doing the maneuvers) much like a sail on a boat when running 90 deg to the wind. Since the airplane is tethered the energy collected on the fuselage must be converted to forward motion. Obviously your point about there being two approaches to drag/lift control is still unchanged, I was just unclear about the mechanism by which wind acts on the airplane.

Of the top of my head, I could think of one, maybe two more approaches to plane design: The Northeast concept of Big Jim derived planes, ie Patternmasters, Windy's stuff, etc. Then the Southeast Randy Smith stuff, although I don't really know the design history of SV series, so maybe it is an extension of the West coast stuff, maybe not.

Where would you place your Mr Hyde, etc designs? West Coast or Rabe?

>I would ask a question that is a bit of a sidebar to your
>main tenet, but perhaps valid: where is the extra energy
>imposed by the wind being collected?

I have used a poor choice of words, but frankly, I have little technical background to explain what I see. I think the best answer is I see little "slowing" in the corner with the low drag piped designs. So, I guess instead of saying that wings have more or less energy, a better term would be less or more drag (in the corners). Ted and David's planes in particular, seem to maintain constant speed incredibly well, and the engines are set very mild as to minimize wind up in the wind. Of course, those killer Eather pipes don't hurt either....

An over-sized wing (in "Rabean" terms anyway) would have small flaps or smaller deflection, especially in the case of the AFT CG where the control deflections are minimized. This would create minimal drag which would allow for a more constant thrust engine package to work to its' best potential. This same constant thrust package may not work in the high drag Rabean case.

>Of the top of my head, I could think of one, maybe two more
>approaches to plane design: The Northeast concept of Big
>Jim derived planes, ie Patternmasters, Windy's stuff, etc.
>Then the Southeast Randy Smith stuff, although I don't
>really know the design history of SV series, so maybe it is
>an extension of the West coast stuff, maybe not.

I commented on Kent Tysor's Strega at the Nats. It flew wonderfully in the high winds with the RO Jett 65 on the pipe. Maybe more constant than I ever saw with the former PM based designs on the ST 60. I think that Al would say that the PM based design definitely has an over-sized wing for the weight, especially with enough available thrust. Obviously, this is one very successful design. I use a lot of Big Jim based components.

>Where would you place your Mr Hyde, etc designs? West Coast
>or Rabe?

Mr. Hyde, and even more so Dr. Jekyll, are Impacts with the wing moved forward to accommodate the 4 stroke weight and keep the CG aft. They definitely work the best with the low pitch high RPM constant thrust engine setup. They also work best with low control throws as in the case of the AFT CG. In a light configuration the thrust must closely regulated.

The Zone 2 goes back to the smaller Time Machine wing with large flaps. The lift was definately adequate on the origianl Zone, and wind up was less evident with the higher thrust propellors. The problems with the original Zone was balance and power in the tail.

>Mr. Hyde, and even more so Dr. Jekyll, are Impacts with the
>wing moved forward to accommodate the 4 stroke weight and
>keep the CG aft.

I am replying to my own post...I am talking to myself. I am definitely losing it.

My planes ARE more than Impacts with the wings moved forward. That statement is not really fair to myself, but in the Al Rabe tradition I feel I have not made enough significant changes to argue that the design is radically different...

>
>I have used a poor choice of words, but frankly, I have
>little technical background to explain what I see. I think
>the best answer is I see little "slowing" in the corner with
>the low drag piped designs. So, I guess instead of saying
>that wings have more or less energy, a better term would be
>less or more drag (in the corners). Ted and David's planes
>in particular, seem to maintain constant speed incredibly
>well, and the engines are set very mild as to minimize wind
>up in the wind. Of course, those killer Eather pipes don't
>hurt either....
>
>An over-sized wing (in "Rabean" terms anyway) would have
>small flaps or smaller deflection, especially in the case of
>the AFT CG where the control deflections are minimized.
>This would create minimal drag which would allow for a more
>constant thrust engine package to work to its' best
>potential. This same constant thrust package may not work
>in the high drag Rabean case.

I understand exactly what you are saying now. Cool.

>I commented on Kent Tysor's Strega at the Nats. It flew
>wonderfully in the high winds with the RO Jett 65 on the
>pipe. Maybe more constant than I ever saw with the former
>PM based designs on the ST 60. I think that Al would say
>that the PM based design definitely has an over-sized wing
>for the weight, especially with enough available thrust.
>Obviously, this is one very successful design. I use a lot
>of Big Jim based components.
>
>>Where would you place your Mr Hyde, etc designs? West Coast
>>or Rabe?
>
>Mr. Hyde, and even more so Dr. Jekyll, are Impacts with the
>wing moved forward to accommodate the 4 stroke weight and
>keep the CG aft. They definitely work the best with the low
>pitch high RPM constant thrust engine setup. They also work
>best with low control throws as in the case of the AFT CG.
>In a light configuration the thrust must closely regulated.
>
>The Zone 2 goes back to the smaller Time Machine wing with
>large flaps. The lift was definately adequate on the
>origianl Zone, and wind up was less evident with the higher
>thrust propellors. The problems with the original Zone was
>balance and power in the tail.

Got it. I thought the Zone and Mr Hyde, etc were the same aero package. I see that they are not. Thanks for the explanation. I may have to get my hands on the Zone II PDF file one of these days! Thanks for taking the time to explain it.

Brad,

I will add one thing that Brett didn't - the piped planes also use the pipe brakeing effect to help control wind acceleration. I admit that the pipe needs to be dead on the required length for it to have much effect, but it does have some. I will find out what effect prop diameter has when I get the RO Jett .61 hooked up with the 13" 3.75 Eather prop I just bought for it. I might have to cut it down to 12.5" but at least I will have some guage to go by.

BTW West Coast - Al. Where does the East coast planes come into this equation at - Patternmaster, ect??

Absolutely not - in fact it's a very interesting topic to me and I would love to have a reasoned discussion about it. Al is perfectly willing, since we have talked about it in the past. But some people are awfully touchy abou this topic, and I fear that this touchiness will come out at some point. I've gotten my head bit off over it, in fact.
Brett

Brett,

Truly, I don't get it. Are you saying we have people in this hobby who are "touchy," your word, not mine, when it comes to mere hardware? As in airframes, their design, wing loading and so on?

Well, I suppose I'll have to take your word on this subject, even though I am hoping it is a monstrous mistake, one which you have been caught making.

In order to avoid any hard feelings down the road, please confirm that the possibilities for controversy and touchiness are not a factor when choosing and/or discussing powerplants for our model aircraft.

I certainly look forward to the discussion proposed by 'Zilla. Even if marred by polite and reasonable input from all concerned.

""Then the Southeast Randy Smith stuff, although I don't really know the design history of SV series, so maybe it is an extension of the West coast stuff, maybe not."

It is definatly NOT an extension of any west coast or northeast development.And it is differant from all of those designs.
It is from my own work from the mid 70s untill now, and is still a work in progress, and alway will be.
The closest ones to my planes are the NEW ones Bill Werwage is using. not his old lower aspect ratio designs

Regards

>Truly, I don't get it. Are you saying we have people in this
>hobby who are "touchy," your word, not mine, when it comes
>to mere hardware? As in airframes, their design, wing
>loading and so on?

Well...yes.

However, I have "endeavored to persevere", and create a New Age where anyone can discuss anything about toy airplanes with toy engines, especially the design. In this Age do not be afraid to ask why one flies good and another does not (given a particular set of variables).

Maybe we should officially call this the New Golden Age of Stunt Enlightenment ala SSW.

I feel very fortunate to know Al Rabe personally, as well as Bob Geiseke, Bill Wilson, Doug and Steve Moon, Joe Reinhard, and a whole host of others who have directly influenced my personal philosophy (not to mention Ted, Brett, Randy, Paul Walker, Richard Oliver, and etc who have taught me plenty RIGHT HERE IN THIS FORUM).

This type of discussion is an honest attempt to relay ideas that I may have been more fully exposed to than some of the guys who have less personal contact with some of the subjects.

>Truly, I don't get it. Are you saying we have people in this
>hobby who are "touchy," your word, not mine, when it comes
>to mere hardware? As in airframes, their design, wing
>loading and so on?
>
>Well, I suppose I'll have to take your word on this subject,
>even though I am hoping it is a monstrous mistake, one which
>you have been caught making.
>

That's right Dan, just keep sticking the needle in, quite helpful.

Hi Brad

Just for info ,there is a very large amount of others development you may not be aware of that works well too.
It would be interesting to look at Scott Bair's hi to mid aspect ratio planes with very high parasitic drag,thick airfoils, and very low wing loadings. some of these flew very well at 6.2 lap times, and had 60 to 68 inch spans, 3 inch spinners, 65 engines,19 in tails and weigh 45 ounces, turning 15 and 16 inch props.

there is one that Model Aviation has , that was published years back, it is called the Stunt Fire. a semi scale Spitfire.

Regards

>Hi Brad
>
>Just for info ,there is a very large amount of others
>development you may not be aware of that works well too.

That is an understatement of huge proportions!!!

I am simply commenting on what I know, as I have a small (but interesting) cross section of people I fly with and designs I have paid close attention too.

Ted has been very forthcoming on his design philosophy many times, (which I never even came close to understanding before SSW) which has helped me LOOK for things in those types of designs.

Al, on the other hand, is simply at the other end of the spectrum, and I am sometimes relentless in our conversations, so I have gleaned a few things.

I don't think Al has ever fully stated the overall "philosophy" of what, in the pursuit of developing semi-scales, is a completely unique and effective approach to competitve stunt. One that, could have several advantages over some of the other designs out there.

>Just for info ,there is a very large amount of others
>development you may not be aware of that works well too.
That is an understatement of huge proportions!!!

Hello Brad

I realize that there are many many such cases, I just mentioned Scott's Stuntfires because he was using 14 to 16 inch props and very big motors years ago, alomg with short nose and very long tail moments.
This i s a life time of work developing teh perfect stuntship....That's one of the most fun parts of this hobby!

>I realize that there are many many such cases, I just
>mentioned Scott's Stuntfires because he was using 14 to
> 16 inch props and very big motors years ago, alomg with
>short nose and very long tail moments.
>This i s a life time of work developing teh perfect
>stuntship....That's one of the most fun parts of this
>hobby!

I'm still going to stay out of the rest of this (since between Ted and I we pretty much have told everyone exactly what we are doing, and why, about a million times - I can't help it if no one beleives us!!). But I got to see several of Scott's airplanes fly, and I can't think of many people who put more high-level engineering thought into action that he did. And the engine article, while now a little dated, is still so chock full of good information and good thinking that it's really mandatory reading. I;m not copying him in any way - but I still learned a tremendous amount from reading his paper, watching him fly, and a few brief conversations at contests more than 20 years ago. In some ways, he influenced me to apply my professional and (at the time) academic skills to this problem.

>
>>I realize that there are many many such cases, I just
>>mentioned Scott's Stuntfires because he was using 14 to
>> 16 inch props and very big motors years ago, alomg with
>>short nose and very long tail moments.
>>This i s a life time of work developing teh perfect
>>stuntship....That's one of the most fun parts of this
>>hobby!
>
>
> I'm still going to stay out of the rest of this (since
>between Ted and I we pretty much have told everyone exactly
>what we are doing, and why, about a million times - I can't
>help it if no one beleives us!!). But I got to see several
>of Scott's airplanes fly, and I can't think of many people
>who put more high-level engineering thought into action that
>he did. And the engine article, while now a little dated, is
>still so chock full of good information and good thinking
>that it's really mandatory reading. I;m not copying him in
>any way - but I still learned a tremendous amount from
>reading his paper, watching him fly, and a few brief
>conversations at contests more than 20 years ago. In some
>ways, he influenced me to apply my professional and (at the
>time) academic skills to this problem.
>
> Brett

I was very privileged to fly one of Scott's Stunt Fires on a layover in Atlanta years ago. Extremely impressive machine and the first time I came to understand how certain combinations of factors would make the Rabe rudder extremely valuable.

As Randy mentioned, Scott's airplanes were large, very light and had a bunch of rotating mass with the very large spinners and props. Flying them very positively at more than six seconds a lap was an eye opening experience. Unfortunately, Scott's skills and dedication far outstripped my own and the prospect of actually building a work of art like his and then flying the tar out of it gave me nightmares. I settled for a more mundane approach.

This (Scott's Stuntfire) is one of the articles that should be republished just so people can bask in it from time to time. An amazing project.

>This (Scott's Stuntfire) is one of the articles that should
>be republished just so people can bask in it from time to
>time. An amazing project.
>
>Ted

That would be great. I never have never even heard of a Sunfire.

Does anyone have the article or pictures?

>
>>This (Scott's Stuntfire) is one of the articles that should
>>be republished just so people can bask in it from time to
>>time. An amazing project.
>>
>>Ted
>
>That would be great. I never have never even heard of a
>Sunfire.
>
>Does anyone have the article or pictures?

Stuntfire - it kind of looks like a Spitfire, but not all that much. It was in MA in the late 70's/early 80's. I saved that one somewhere, I'll try ti dig it out sometine soon.

>>
>>>This (Scott's Stuntfire) is one of the articles that should
>>>be republished just so people can bask in it from time to
>>>time. An amazing project.
>>>
>>>Ted
>>
>>That would be great. I never have never even heard of a
>>Sunfire.
>>
>>Does anyone have the article or pictures?
>
> Stuntfire - it kind of looks like a Spitfire, but not all
>that much. It was in MA in the late 70's/early 80's. I saved
>that one somewhere, I'll try ti dig it out sometine soon.
>
> Brett

Captain Curt should be able to tell you if PAMPA Products has it.

>>>
>>>>This (Scott's Stuntfire) is one of the articles that should
>>>>be republished just so people can bask in it from time to
>>>>time. An amazing project.
>>>>
>>>>Ted
>>>
>>>That would be great. I never have never even heard of a
>>>Sunfire.
>>>
>>>Does anyone have the article or pictures?
>>
>> Stuntfire - it kind of looks like a Spitfire, but not all
>>that much. It was in MA in the late 70's/early 80's. I saved
>>that one somewhere, I'll try ti dig it out sometine soon.
>>
>> Brett
>
>
>Captain Curt should be able to tell you if PAMPA Products
>has it.

If not, I do hope someone will share it somehow. Those of us who are only very recently in the hobby can really benefit by becoming aware of things like this, which we will not without these items being trotted out occasionally...

Tim

Scott's plane is in the August 83 issue of Model Aviation. You can access it by going to the AMA website ( www.modelaircraft.org ) click on the members only area and log into the digital archives. Do a search for Stuntfire 60.

Just curious, How many Nat's wins of West Coast ( Trivial Pursuit/ StarGazer and Impact lineage) design? How many wins for the Rabe designs? Larry NorCal Circle Jerks

>Just curious, How many Nat's wins of West Coast ( Trivial
>Pursuit/ StarGazer and Impact lineage) design? How many wins
>for the Rabe designs? Larry NorCal Circle Jerks

Irrelevant, the airplane helps but the pilot is the one that wins. I would be willing to bet that any of the NATTs winners could win with any of the successful setups if that is the design/style of ship they wanted to fly.

This is a great thread and I for one hope it doesn't get railroaded or end up in flames.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-04 AT 07:05 PM (CDT)
 
Larry,

Is it fair to compare my designs with other more popular configurations. For the 11 years I competed my semi-scale airplanes won open stunt 3 times, 2 Walker Trophys, World Championship second, some seconds, some thirds, one fourth and two "did not finish" for one reason or another. Never finished worse than forth if both officials were flown. That ought to be all the testimony necessary to justify the competitive capability of my designs compared to others of the time. I thik the aerodynamics are still just fine. Bringing the airplanes up to date with modern engines should make them as competitive as ever.

Larry,

No one is counting because it is really, really irrelivant. However, if it must be done I believe it's something like 21-3 of you count Bill Werwage in with the westeners.

Seems a lot of differnt approaches trying to get to the same end product. Controllable power and predictable reponse to input. I notice that I fly a lot better if the plane goes where I point it at a tractable speed and with enough power.

The person on the end of the handle wins. Not the style of the plane.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-02-04 AT 08:00 PM (CDT)
 
I was just having a similar discussion the other day with a friend.

I was joking that someone would pick up the handle on my favorite OTS Combo, a Viking/Fox.59 and tell me what a horrible plane it is, and wonder how could I stand it! The first couple of flights most people would think it hunts like mad and plant it. On the first few flights after a lay-off, I myself think gee, I should narrow up the handle or add some nose weight, but after a few more flights I "get into" it, and decide it's pretty cool that way.(as I know with either "fix" I would loose the killer turn that makes the plane so fun to fly)

The point is you have to "get into" some planes to realize their potential. If I haven't flown the Bob Baron ST60/Humbug I have in a while, I stink up the place with it at first, and it takes me a few flights to "get into" it again. After a while, I appreciate it's capabilities again. I don't think one turn at the handle on a buddy's ship is a fair shake of what the design is capable of, it only tells you how different the style is from what you are currently comfortable with.(assuming all things equal, being these ships are well trimmed out, the only difference being the flight characteristics of the design itself)

I liked Bill Werwages comment in his new USA-1 article, about him and Jerry Worth flying each others planes, and both not liking the others wing, but Billy liked Jerry's fuselage enough to mimic it.

Billy so much as came out and said something I have strongly come to believe, that a good flying airplane is 50% engine run 50% competent design. The winning aspect is 100% of the pilots ability to be accurate and consistent with the above package.

Eric V.

You're fearless, 'zilla!

Naw, I think it is fine grist for the mill and as long as everyone thinks in terms of sharing the info it ought to work fine.

I'd make just one caveat before we get too invested in the "differences" and that is to note that every design we're talking about (including Al's that look so much different) have way more in common than they do in differences. As a result, I think what a conversation like this can properly air is a better understanding of what happens when the envelope is tweaked. We are not talking about a no 10 business letter envelope versus a 9 X 12 Manila mailer! It's more like comparing an envelope with a window for the address to one without. They both do the same job, with only a nuanced difference.

It will be important that individuals not get "defensive" about their designs and recognize that a large number of variations on the basic theme have proven successful. Again, in large part because they share more similarities than differences and, as someone has already noted, a top flyer could likely mold any of them to suit his/her individual preferences and be competitive at the highest level.

My first comment about what has been said so far is that I think a ruler would probably show that the most unique feature of Al's airplanes is more the large size of the fuse relative to the wing than any grossly reduced size of the wing in comparison to other ships. I haven't measured them (although I've got plans for the Mustang and Bearcat that were published ... very early efforts as I recall) but I expect we'd find the areas of the wings wasn't out of the range of normal.

His use of refined flaps of larger chord is likely the source of the required inhanced lift for the slightly heavier wing loading his scale like designs produced.

I also think you'd be a bit surprised at the size of the flaps on Brett's Infinity. Bigger than you remember, I think.

I'm going to keep quiet for a bit about the design considerations of my own series of ships to see what, if anything, others have to say about them. I'll be watching this thread with great interest.

Good idea, 'zilla.

Ted

p.s. I would refrain from the use of words like "versus". Sort of makes it sound like a prize fight!

>You're fearless, 'zilla!

Inconceivable!!!!

>I also think you'd be a bit surprised at the size of the
>flaps on Brett's Infinity. Bigger than you remember, I
>think.

I want a set of plans. I asked Brett, he nearly shivered at the task ahead.

>I'm going to keep quiet for a bit about the design
>considerations of my own series of ships to see what, if
>anything, others have to say about them. I'll be watching
>this thread with great interest.

Like I said, I watched David and yourself at the last Nats with great interest. I thought you in particular were flying the best I had personally ever seen, especially in the horrible conditions.

I did comment on something I had never noticed before. Your planes seem to turn with a minimum "swivel" or "flap swivel". I had always been accustomed to seeing airplanes that slow and swivel around the flaps more than yours or David's. Your planes seem to track the tail behind the wing more than anyone else's. It is a definately unique look. I said that it had appearance like some of the long tailed slow combat planes I have seen. Very good speed maintenance in the corner, or a look of very little "flap braking" in the corner. The properly trimmed TP appears to use the absolute minumum flap for a very tight corner. It is also amazing to me that your two planes appear to fly almost identically...

Al's planes on the other hand are the extreme of "swivel" or "flap braking". Patternmaster's fly that way also, as does the Saturn.

It makes total sense that Al would need more pitch and thrust and the lower drag setups would need less.

If you really want to see a plane that requires absolutely precisely controlled thrust, watch a light plane with too much flap that appears to "pick up the nose". This is a very difficult combination to control, and will add energy quickly in the wind. This can also result from poor trim, a result of elevator to flap ratio that is out of wack. My airplanes usually show too much flap on the inverted turn. I do not know why. This usually leads to increased control loads in that direction, which is bad.

>
>>I also think you'd be a bit surprised at the size of the
>>flaps on Brett's Infinity. Bigger than you remember, I
>>think.
>
>
>I want a set of plans. I asked Brett, he nearly shivered at
>the task ahead.
>

Well, talking out of class here, I think the plans are done and now it's a matter of writing an article about the plane.

>>I'm going to keep quiet for a bit about the design
>>considerations of my own series of ships to see what, if
>>anything, others have to say about them. I'll be watching
>>this thread with great interest.
>
>Like I said, I watched David and yourself at the last Nats
>with great interest. I thought you in particular were
>flying the best I had personally ever seen, especially in
>the horrible conditions.
>
>I did comment on something I had never noticed before. Your
>planes seem to turn with a minimum "swivel" or "flap
>swivel". I had always been accustomed to seeing airplanes
>that slow and swivel around the flaps more than yours or
>David's. Your planes seem to track the tail behind the wing
>more than anyone else's. It is a definately unique look. I
>said that it had appearance like some of the long tailed
>slow combat planes I have seen. Very good speed maintenance
>in the corner, or a look of very little "flap braking" in
>the corner. The properly trimmed TP appears to use the
>absolute minumum flap for a very tight corner. It is also
>amazing to me that your two planes appear to fly almost
>identically...
>

Very perceptive. My intention was to develop an airplane that produced the amount of lift necessary to fly a corner of given G loading and no more (at least not too much more ... don't want it to stall if we can help it). The desired result (and what I think it is you are describing) is an airplane that flies "around" the corner radius, with the CG tracking right around it. This as opposed to a combination which produces more lift than required and "accelerates" the airplane "into" the corner ... a swooping kind of motion as opposed to flying around the corner.

The design does seem to be very repeatable. David and my airplanes react almost identically to trim changes. This is also likely due to the fact that we've flown together so much that we have developed a taste preference for a certain style of pattern that, no surprisingly, requires a certain sort of trim.

>Al's planes on the other hand are the extreme of "swivel" or
>"flap braking". Patternmaster's fly that way also, as does
>the Saturn.
>
>It makes total sense that Al would need more pitch and
>thrust and the lower drag setups would need less.
>

Now this statement is counterintuitive to me. One of the primary characterisitics I like about the low pitch/high rev set up is its reluctance to slow down due to drag. The "low gear" concept that has been discussed so much over the years. It would seem like a high drag configuration would be more in need of this than one that produces less induced drag in corners. (Remember, form drag or drag due to the shape of the thing is constant with speed.

What changes during maneuvering is the additional drag that comes from the production of the lift necessary to fly the required pitch radius. The bulky fuse thing with Al's airplanes require a proportional amount more energy to fly a given speed in level flight but, once the maneuvers start, the increase in drag is solely a matter of induced drag. It would seem more logical to me for a draggy airplane like Al's to employ higher aspect ratios to achieve and improved lift to drag ratio during maneuvers.

>If you really want to see a plane that requires absolutely
>precisely controlled thrust, watch a light plane with too
>much flap that appears to "pick up the nose". This is a
>very difficult combination to control, and will add energy
>quickly in the wind. This can also result from poor trim, a
>result of elevator to flap ratio that is out of wack. My
>airplanes usually show too much flap on the inverted turn.
>I do not know why. This usually leads to increased control
>loads in that direction, which is bad.

I agree completely. The only thing worse than too much lift in "precision" aerobatics is too little lift. Your statement about control loads on your airplanes is interesting. Especially since you imply it is a recurring condition. Leads me to think about handle settings which can produce a sensation or feel of requiring more effort one way than another. If the pilot employs a handle set-up that is non-symetrical it is likely that loads will feel different on insides and outsides. In such a case the load will be handle induced and not a function of the airplane.

Or, you might have some sort of building quirk that results in your airplanes having a built in bias of one sort or another. Thust line versus vertical center of drag or some such dichotomy.

I assume you've tried to adjust the neutral between flap and elevator to address the problem?

If Stunt ever congeals down to one absolute, overpowering, omnipotent design methodology, I'll stop being interested.

Besides, I'm convinced that it is ultimately the PILOT who wins contests, rather than the ship design. Give a clod like myself the finest equipment on the planet, and I will grin about it, but I'll still fly it poorly.

Keep the discussions open. If Unsanitary Danny starts to incite something, I may just have to open a #303 can of Whoop Azz (or maybe a cold beer) on him for you guys.

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

Dejaja vu = "Have we met, Ms. Gabor?"
Dijon vu = "This mustard tastes familiar."
Daysa vu = "This is the same storyline they did on that other soap opera."
Deja moo = "I swear that's the exact same cow we passed about six miles ago."

Larry,

If the cow was flying through the air - hide in a ditch, you are in the worlds largest tornado!! I don't need to tell you that though since you live so close to "TORNADO ALLEY"!

Actually, Jim, I'm lucky in that we have almost no tornadoes here in south central New Mexico. What we DO have are months of spring windy weather, which are flat tornadoes, on their way to the Texas panhandle to wreck some trailer parks..

Those Texans have all kinds of tornadoes, they aren't even scared of them!!

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

668 --- the neighbor of the beast.
0.666 -- Number of the Millibeast
1010011010 -- Binary of The Beast
29A -- Hexadecimal of the Beast
1232 - Octal of the Beast

Ted,

>>It would seem more logical to me for a draggy airplane like Al's to employ higher aspect ratios to achieve and improved lift to drag ratio during maneuvers.<<

But with increase in aspect ratio, won't other difficulties be introduced? In another thread, we were talking about the increase in sensitivity to turbulence that comes with an increase in aspect ratio (something I've become increasingly privvy to). Does this pertain when we're talking about semi-scale? I would assume that being semi-scale makes little difference unless the increase in parasitic drag from the bulky nature of the designs somehow has an effect on turbulence sensitivity.

>Ted,
>
>>>It would seem more logical to me for a draggy airplane like Al's to employ higher aspect ratios to achieve and improved lift to drag ratio during maneuvers.<<
>
>But with increase in aspect ratio, won't other difficulties
>be introduced? In another thread, we were talking about the
>increase in sensitivity to turbulence that comes with an
>increase in aspect ratio (something I've become increasingly
>privvy to). Does this pertain when we're talking about
>semi-scale? I would assume that being semi-scale makes
>little difference unless the increase in parasitic drag from
>the bulky nature of the designs somehow has an effect on
>turbulence sensitivity.
>
>

Randy Powell

Remember Randy, we're talking corners of the envelope, not a new mail bag!

Al is/was after a very special combination of parameters to allow performance well beyond what would normally be anticipated for an acft of quite unusual proportions. Among the ways to gain such performance would be to utilize ways to get more lift at a lesser drag penalty, thus making lower demands on the powerplants (remember how a key ingredient of Al's approach was always "more" power?).

This is a bit different from experimenting with six or eight ARs on a more or less conventional platform. I was just saying that if I were to approach a design with Al's goals I would be more apt to utilize resources that minimized induced drag and powertrains that would optimize the ability to overcome the debilitating effects of high drag in maneuvers.

Remember, scale like planforms of real airplanes will generally be of much higher aspect ratio than the five to one common to clpa stunt designs. Thus Al and others can employ such without detracting from the scale like concept they desire.

In other words, a four to one aspect ratio Bearcat with a Fox .35 and a 8 X 8 prop probably isn't a recipe for success!

very neat thread. Who has the time, and the info, to catalog a bunch of different planes and see where the characteristics cluster? Wing area, weight, span, flap percentage, wing shape(tip to root ratio)stab percentage, span, elev/stab ratio, and maybe carry it into some performance figures, power loading, wing loading, span loading, stability, profile drag. Chuck Buffalano did this awhile back for scalelike designs. He had some good info.

Godzilla's point is well taken- there are whole slew of design characteristics, but a lot of the designs tend to cluster in certain areas for good reason- different types of design suit different flyers, if nothing else than they allow someone like Al R. to fly very realistic semi-scale planes competitively.

LAST EDITED ON Feb-04-04 AT 08:51 PM (CDT)
 
Brad,

I have read this whole thread, twice. Really good stuff in here. Lots of good info.

However, I am going to have to nitpic just a bit here. I am really not trying to be pesky here but I see something I want to comment on.

Werwage and the West Coast(Ted and Brett) are not the same at all.

Ted's wing really isnt that large at all. He uses moderate to heavy wing loadings. He wins the nats on 66+oz on his 650 sq inch wing.

After talking with Bob G. many times about what Billy is doing. Bob is one of the few who can get the guy on the phone.. There are a few things that come through every time.

>This is how I see it...
>
>West Coast/Werwage:
>1. Large wings.

Yes he uses large wings. Much larger than a west coaster but MUCH thinner also.

>2. High energy, high lift wings (high AR is common).

Yes for Werwage but a WC is right along the norm.

>3. Low drag, especially in corners.

Yep, for both.

>4. Moderate wing loading.

Werwage goes for as light as humanly possible. He has a 720+ square incher at 56oz. or lighter.

The WC is not so much into who is lighter. They come in the mid 60s and it works.

>5. Small flaps or low flap ratios.

Wewage uses large flaps. Those flaps on my plane are big and they came from Bob and Billy conversations.

I look at Ted's on the plan and they seem pretty small in comparison.

>6. Small to moderate sized propellers (not max for the
>engine).

Billy always goes for the larger props. One year we were there and his 61 was spinning some weird paddle prop that was 13.5X4. He went with another 13" for the contest.

WC uses what they can get smooth regualer runs with. Not so much on maxing out the motor.

>7. Low pitch propellers.
>8. Low "boost" minimum 4-2 break.
>9. Very regulated power output (pipes and low pitch high
>RPM).

Both are doing the same here.

>10. Low to moderately powerful engines for the size of the
>wing (many designs originally developed for the OS VF 40 or
>ST 46).

Billy always went for the next size motor UP when it was available. He also trys for larger pipes all the time. He is trying for all that the motor has. For a while in the heat he was running his 61 with only some solicon between the head and the cylinder, NO SHIMS.

WC using a more steady approach to the maddness of stunt.

>11. AFT CG (25% MAC or more).

Both are the same here.

What is the definition of West Coast models? The Impact and TP/Star Gazer models are pretty far apart. The concept is the same but the design of the wing and loading and all that stuff is very different.

What I want to know is, where does Randy Smith's evolution of models fit in?

Randy and Billy's style of Wings are very close in comparison. He also uses a good amount of AR on his designs. His designs are every where you turn. They arent like WC(Ted and David) not like North East Planes, Patternamster.

I saw a post somewhere in here about Tysor's strega on a Pipe. That is a patternmaster plane on a pipe. It works real good. It was originally built around a 2-4 tiger...???...

And where does Saturn fit in? I built a Saturn and many Bears. The Saturn and Bear wing are almost in bed together. The only real difference is the Saturn is more blunt on the LE. The rest is the same. Give a Bear a 26% tail and blunt the LE and I bet it would KILL!

So many designs So many angles...isnt stunt fun?

>Werwage and the West Coast(Ted and Brett) are not the same
>at all.

I guess you arre right. I keep trying to find a correlation between what you and Bob are doing and what Ted, David, and Brett are doing. Maybe there is little direct correlation.

Ted, David, and Brett require slightly more pitch than your latest high aspect ratio designs. This could be a combination of factors including weight, drag, diameter. David and Ted's planes definately turn a radius different than your planes. So in that respect maybe the TP in its current configuration is somewhat unique. Brett's Infinity has a very beautiful turn, and "swivels" very nicely, which is different than the TP.

The Billy Bear requires the least amount of pitch to maintain constant speed of anything I saw at last year's Nats. It is definately a "high energy" airplane.

Maybe some of what I am seeing is the effect of aft CG on the selection props. Once the CG starts drifting rearward the control deflection is minimized, whereupon drag is also minimized. Thus, less "boost" in the corner is required. In that case the premium is, in fact, on the braking effect over the boost.

Al Rabe does just the opposite. He promotes larger control deflections for additional lift which requires additional "boost" from the engine in the corners, or there will be eventual slowing.

>>West Coast/Werwage:
>>1. Large wings.
>
>Yes he uses large wings. Much larger than a west coaster
>but MUCH thinner also.

I do not see that Werwages latest T-Bolt efforts are thin at all. They appear to be very similar to the fatter stunt wings. In years past, however, this was certainly not the case.

>>5. Small flaps or low flap ratios.
>
>Wewage uses large flaps. Those flaps on my plane are big
>and they came from Bob and Billy conversations.
>
>I look at Ted's on the plan and they seem pretty small in
>comparison.

Yes, but the aft CG truly effectively reduces the large flaps because the controls are deflected so little.

I found with the more forward CG that the Impacts cannot use full 1/1 flap defections (of course Paul found this out first). The flaps were originally sized for 25% to 26% MAC CG. At 23% MAC they are simply too big to use at full 1/1 ratio deflection. The only way stop "lifting the nose" is to move the CG aft or add more elevator to flap ratio.

Al Rabe talked about this about 30 years ago in his Sea Fury article. He used CG to create more lift. The more forward the CG the more tail deflection required to turn. If the controls are kept at 1/1 ratio, the flaps will be forced to deflect more for a given turn, thereby creating more lift and a greater angle of attack.

The West Coasters and Billy perfected the aft CG which is actually in the opposite direction. If you look at Billy's designs from an era of more forward CG's you will see that the flap size is smaller than you will see now with the AFT CG (maybe I am wrong, but they LOOK smaller anyway). On top of that Billy typically runs less than a 1/1 control ratio bacuase his planes are so light.

>>6. Small to moderate sized propellers (not max for the
>>engine).
>
>Billy always goes for the larger props. One year we were
>there and his 61 was spinning some weird paddle prop that
>was 13.5X4. He went with another 13" for the contest.
>
>WC uses what they can get smooth regualer runs with. Not so
>much on maxing out the motor.

I really think it is for a a turn a radius, not so much for a power capability or potential.

Billy might hav been running a 22" tail moment at the time.

>>8. Low "boost" minimum 4-2 break.
>>9. Very regulated power output (pipes and low pitch high
>>RPM).
>
>Both are doing the same here.
>
>>10. Low to moderately powerful engines for the size of the
>>wing (many designs originally developed for the OS VF 40 or
>>ST 46).
>
>Billy always went for the next size motor UP when it was
>available. He also trys for larger pipes all the time. He
>is trying for all that the motor has. For a while in the
>heat he was running his 61 with only some solicon between
>the head and the cylinder, NO SHIMS.

That's true. Billy has always been a proponent of upping the motor size. This goes all the way back to the Junar article.